Professional Documents
Culture Documents
As the number of women in management roles increases and organizations place a greater emphasis on diversity, a subsequent change in
perceptions of women as leader-like is expected. To test this notion,
we examined gender and management stereotypes of male and female
managers and students. Results reveal considerable change in male managers views of women over the past 30 years, as evidenced by greater
congruence between their perceptions of women and successful managers and stronger endorsement of agentic and task-oriented leadership
characteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changed
less, remaining strikingly similar to stereotypes held by male managers
15 years ago. Across samples, there was general agreement in the characteristics of managers but less agreement about the characteristics of
women. We also found men somewhat less likely than women to attribute successful manager characteristics to women. Respondents with
positive past experiences with female managers tended to rate women
higher on management characteristics.
In the United States, the number of women in the managerial and professional ranks has steadily increased. According to Catalyst, a research
and advisory organization committed to advancing women in business,
women now hold 51% of managerial and professional specialty positions
(Welle, 2004). Women also hold 51% of bachelors degrees and 45% of
all advanced degrees (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although these numbers are
larger today than ever before, the progression of women into executive
positions continues to be slow. For example, among the Fortune 500 companies, only 16% of corporate officers, 14% of board directors, 5% of top
earners, and just over 1% of CEOs are women (Welle, 2004).
Much research has focused on explaining the slow managerial advancement of women (e.g., Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005;
Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992), ruling out reasons such as lesser skills, education, and time out of the workforce. One plausible explanation that has
not been ruled out is that women face subtle barriers in the corporate climb.
In a recent survey of 120 CEOs and 705 female executives drawn from the
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Emily E. Duehr, 75
East River Road, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
55455; dueh0005@umn.edu.
C 2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.
COPYRIGHT
815
816
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Gender stereotypes are categorical beliefs regarding the traits and behavioral characteristics ascribed to individuals on the basis of their gender.
They serve as expectations about the attributes and behaviors of individual
group members (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000) and are considered one of the direct antecedents of discrimination at work (Dovidio &
Hebl, 2005). Typically, women are stereotyped as more communal and
men as more agentic. Communal characteristics are primarily concerned
with the welfare of other people, including attributes such as compassionate, kind, sentimental, helpful, and generous. Agentic characteristics
describe a more assertive, dominant, and confident tendency, including
attributes such as aggressive, ambitious, independent, and self-confident.
Agentic characteristics have traditionally been aligned with leadership
roles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002).
817
818
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
819
demonstrating that it was not only males who held gender stereotypes in the
workplace.
In a key extension of the Schein paradigm approximately 15 years after
the original research, Heilman et al. (1989) examined the extent to which
gender stereotypes persisted in organizations. Heilman et al. (1989) replicated Scheins (1973) original work and found stereotypical views about
the characteristics of men in general, women in general, and successful managers at a level that closely paralleled Scheins (1973) findings,
suggesting little change in the stereotypes of male managers over time.
Heilman also extended Scheins research by comparing successful managers to male and female managers and to successful male and female
managers, finding considerably weaker gender stereotypes when more information was provided about the managerial success of women (e.g.,
female managers or successful female managers).
Concurrent research with female managers yielded slightly different
results. Brenner et al. (1989) replicated the original Schein studies using
both male and female management samples. They found no evidence of
changing stereotypes among male managers; however, female managers
rated both men and women as similar to successful managers. This disparity between male and female respondents was due largely to differences
in their view of women, not in their view of successful managers.
Since 1989, researchers have continued to use the Schein paradigm to
identify gender stereotypes, but nearly all of this research has used student
samples. Although some researchers have argued that college students
would be less likely to report gender stereotypes due to a more egalitarian
social context (Lueptow et al., 2001), research using the Schein paradigm
has repeatedly shown that college students hold strong gender stereotypes,
especially the male students (Schein & Mueller, 1992). Similar results
have been reported among students in Germany, Great Britain, Japan,
and China (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy,
& Liu, 1996). This pattern of findings led Schein (2001) to conclude,
In the United States many people believed that as women moved into
management, managerial sex typing would diminish. And it did, among
women. But men have continued to see women in ways that are not complimentary vis-`a-vis succeeding in positions of authority and influence
(p. 684).
This discouraging statement on gender and management stereotypes
may not apply uniformly to all men. Results derived from student samples may not generalize to employees in work organizations, especially
managers, who experience both increased exposure to women leaders
and direct interventions such as diversity training. Key replications of
the Schein paradigm with managers took place in the late 1980s, at a
time when women were fast increasing their presence in organizations
820
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
(Heilman et al., 1989), but since that time the number of women in leadership positions has continued to grow (Welle, 2004). Therefore, after
another 15-year period, the time is ripe to examine whether gender stereotypes held by managers have changed. It is not sufficient to rely solely
on student samples to address this question. Therefore, we included both
managers and students in our research to provide a more thorough portrait
of current gender and management stereotypes.
Since the first Schein (1973) study of gender and management stereotypes, there have been many advances in the literature with respect to the
conceptualization and measurement of stereotypes, and adjective checklists, such as the Schein Descriptive Index, have been criticized. Devine
and Elliot (1995) distinguished between ratings of stereotypes and ratings of personal beliefs. According to their distinction, the Schein Index
focuses on personal beliefs, which may or may not be congruent with
either knowledge or endorsement of stereotypes (see Kunda & Spencer,
2003). However, by aggregating the personal beliefs of male and female
managers and students, as we do in this research, we can examine the
gender and management stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g.,
male managers).
Recent stereotype research has also demonstrated differences between
explicit and implicit stereotypes (e.g., Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert &
Hanges, 2005). Implicit stereotypes are the introspectively unidentified
traces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members
of a social category (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 15). Additional research has focused on the difference between descriptive (i.e., consensual
expectations about what men and women actually do) and prescriptive (i.e.,
consensual expectations about what men and women should do) stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins,
2004). We recognize both the complexity of stereotypes and their measurement and the possible role that implicit and prescriptive stereotypes
may play in the advancement of women in management. However, as the
purpose of our study was to compare views of men, women, and managers over time, it was necessary for us to use an explicit measure, which
due to its reliance on adjective descriptors of men, women, and managers,
assesses descriptive gender stereotypes.
A second concern raised by Devine and Elliot (1995) was the use of outdated adjectives, which may provide a limited description of men, women,
and managers. Given the changing leadership paradigms over the past
30 years, we felt it was crucial to add adjectives reflecting a broader range of
leadership styles. In particular, adjectives describing relationship-oriented
and transformational leadership were absent from the original Descriptive Index, whereas task-oriented leadership characteristics were wellrepresented. Task-oriented leadership behaviors emphasize group output;
821
such as establishing objectives and goals, structuring tasks, and evaluating work quality. In contrast, relationship-oriented behaviors emphasize
supportive personal relationships, a willingness to develop employees and
demonstrations of respect and warmth (Bales, 1954; Bowers & Seashore,
1966; House & Aditya, 1997). Although task and relationship-oriented
leadership have a long history in the leadership research, recent research
has focused more on transformational leadership behaviors (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers with
optimism and commitment to a compelling vision. They link work goals
to worker values, challenge established practices, and attend to the individual growth needs of followers (Bass, 1985, 1998). Given that recent
meta-analyses have highlighted the positive effects of both relationship1
(Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) and transformational (Judge & Piccolo,
2004) leadership behaviors on employee attitudes and motivation, group
performance, and leader effectiveness, we added adjectives describing
these behaviors to the index.
Most past research using the Schein Index examined each of the 92 adjectives individually. In order to make comparisons over time, we deemed
it important to use the original adjectives, but we also combined the adjectives to form several scales. In order to assess broad gender stereotypes,
agentic and communal scales were formed. In addition, we combined adjectives to form scales for task-oriented leadership, relationship-oriented
leadership, and transformational leadership to better link this research
to current models of effective leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Judge
et al., 2004).
Individual Differences in Beliefs About Men, Women, and Managers
822
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Given the continued movement of women into management positions and changes in dominant leadership paradigms over the past several
decades, the time is ripe to examine whether anything has changed with
respect to management and gender stereotypes. To that end, we address
five specific research questions.
(1) Research Question 1. Have management and gender stereotypes
held by male and female managers changed relative to 15 and 30
years ago?
(2) Research Question 2. Have management and gender stereotypes held
by male and female students changed, and how do they compare to
the stereotypes of male and female managers?
(3) Research Question 3. If gender stereotypes have changed, what is
driving that change? Have views of managers changed, have views
of men and women changed, or have both changed?
(4) Research Question 4. Do the broad gender stereotypic (agentic, communal) and leadership-specific (task-oriented, relationship-oriented,
transformational) characteristics attributed to men, women, and
managers differ by sample?
(5) Research Question 5. Do individual differences in education, age,
management experience, and experiences with female supervisors
predict beliefs about men, women, and managers?
Method
Participants and Procedures
823
TABLE 1
Sample Characteristics for This Study
Sample
Male managers
Female managers
Male students
Female students
N
333
287
221
467
Sample characteristics
Age
Education
# Direct reports
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
Age
Education
# Direct reports
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
Summary statistics
M = 48 years, SD = 8.8
81% BA or higher
x = 9, SD = 13
85.2%
3.1%
1.7%
1.7%
M = 46 years, SD = 9.2
78% BA or higher
x = 9, SD = 10
88.7%
4.0%
0%
1.3%
Age
Managerial experience
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
M = 21 years, SD = 3.8
25% had been managers
Age
Managerial experience
Race
Caucasian
African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
M = 20 years, SD = 3.6
15% had been managers
79.6%
5.0%
1.4%
9.5%
78.6%
2.4%
1.3%
13.3%
academic majors, including economics, journalism, business, and psychology. Demographic information regarding participants age, race, education, and number of direct reports (for managers) is provided in Table 1.
The age of the managers in our samples is comparable to Schein (1973,
1975) and Heilman et al. (1989).
Surveys were administered to managers as an optional component of
a survey used in leadership development programs. Surveys were distributed during orientation and completed prior to the start of any formal
program activity. The research portion of the survey was clearly identified
as distinct from the leadership assessment, which was for developmental
purposes only and not provided to the managers organization. Therefore,
824
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
825
TABLE 2
Sample Breakdown by Condition of the Descriptive Index
Sample
Condition
Male managers
57
50
40
39
51
38
58
Female managers
36
35
36
35
48
50
47
Male students
32
28
36
31
33
36
25
Female students
65
72
70
77
58
60
65
transformational leaders. The new items were based on the most widely
used measure of transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Each author separately
reviewed the MLQ and developed a list of adjectives that were reflective
of transformational leadership, resulting in 13 items to be added to the
inventory (see Appendix A). Additional items were added to reflect management characteristics that are relationship oriented, as such adjectives
were largely unrepresented among the original 92 items of the Descriptive Index. Participants responded to all 118 items using a 5-point rating
scale ranging from 1 not characteristic to 5 characteristic. Survey instructions were modeled after Schein (1975) and asked participants to rate each
adjective according to what they think the target group is like.
826
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 3
Intercorrelations Among Gender and Leadership Scales in This Study
Scale
1. Agentic
2. Communal
3. Task
4. Relationship
5. Transformational
.78
.33
.69
.03
.16
.73
.06
.68
.60
.80
.39
.50
.87
.89
.94
Note. Combined sample = 1,363. Scale alphas are presented on the diagonal.
p < .05. p < .01.
827
To determine the degree of correspondence between ratings of successful middle managers and men and women, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used. ICCs were preferable to Pearsons correlations
for these analyses because ICCs consider both the relative correspondence
and the absolute agreement between ratings. As in past research, ICCs
828
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
2
The current use of ICCs as a measure of correspondence is comparable to a two-way
random effects model/absolute agreement in reliability analyses where two raters rated
92 objects. In our use of the ICCs, the raters are analogous to the control and gendered
conditions while the objects are adjectives. We thank an anonymous reviewer for providing
this illustration to aid in understanding our analyses.
3
In our analyses using the Descriptive Index, the sample size is the number of adjectives (92), not the number of respondents in each condition. Therefore, if the difference in
the correlations between two sets of conditions exceeds .29, the difference between these
correlations reaches statistical significance (p < .05). We note that tests of statistical significance are heavily influenced by sample size, and correlations should only be compared
if variances are equal across samples (Cudeck, 1989). Because we do not have variability
data for the Heilman et al. (1989) data and variances in our data vary somewhat by sample
and target condition, the .29 difference marking significance (p < .05) between correlations
should be used with some caution.
.97
.98
.97
.93
.74
.86
.61
.81
.72
.62
.63
.54
.58
.24
.01
.06
Male
managers
.54
.30
Schein
(1975)
female
managers
Note. Data from this study are presented in bold, in data Columns 4, 7, 9, and 11.
p < .01. p < .001.
Women and
managers
Men and managers
Women managers
and managers
Men managers and
managers
Successful women
managers and
managers
Successful men
managers and
managers
Groups being
compared
Heilman
et al.
(1989)
male
managers
Brenner
et al.
(1989)
male
managers
Schein
(1973)
male
managers
.59
.52
Brenner
et al.
(1989)
female
managers
Sample
.95
.98
.61
.49
.96
.70
Female
managers
.70
.11
Schein
et al.
(1989)
male
students
TABLE 4
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Across Various Samples and
Conditions for the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index
.95
.93
.68
.40
.69
.10
Male
students
.51
.43
Schein
et al.
(1989)
female
students
.95
.98
.78
.45
.91
.35
Female
students
830
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Examination of the data in the row labeled women and managers reveals
a striking change over time in the extent to which male managers see
women in general as similar to successful managers. For male managers,
there was no significant correlation between ratings of successful middle
managers and women in general in 1973 (ICC = .06, ns) and small negative
correlations in 1989 (ICCs = .01 and .24, both ns). In contrast, there
was a large, positive, and significant correlation found in our data (ICC =
.63, p < .01). Results in Table 4 also reveal a change in the extent to which
female managers perceptions of women in general are similar to their
perceptions of successful middle managers (ICC = .30, p < .01 in 1973,
ICC = .52, p < .01 in 1989, and ICC = .70, p < .001 in 2003). Although the
change for female managers was less dramatic than that of male managers
and may have begun earlier, change over the 30-year period was steady,
sizable, and significant.
A comparison of the correlations between successful middle managers
and women in general with the correlations between successful middle
managers and men in general suggests that the male managers who participated in our study see men and women as both possessing many of the
traits of successful middle managers (ICC = .63, p < .001 for women in
general and ICC = .61, p < .001 for men in general). This finding represents a dramatic change in the perceptions of male managers over the
past 30 years. Results for female manager respondents in our study are
similar to those of men in that they tend to view both men and women
as possessing many of the traits of successful managers (ICC = .70, p <
.001 between women and managers and ICC = .49, p < .001 for men and
managers).
Our next step was to compare ratings of successful middle managers
to the men and women manager conditions. We found that both male
and female manager respondents described target women managers and
target men managers as similar to successful middle managers, with the
women manager condition being rated slightly more similar to successful managers than the men manager condition. Both the successful men
and women manager target conditions were described as highly similar
(ICCs .95, p < .001) to the successful manager condition.
Results in Table 4, addressing our first research question, suggest that
gender stereotypes have changed compared to 15 and 30 years ago. Male
and female managers now view men and women as similar to successful
managers. Change was most dramatic among male managers.
Male and female students. Results in Table 4 also include ICCs between successful managers and the six gendered conditions for our student samples along with correlations from Schein et al.s (1989) student
samples for comparison. In contrast to the changes we found in our manager samples, our results suggest that less change has occurred in students
831
gender stereotypes since 1989. Specifically, there was no correlation between male students views of successful managers and women in general
(ICC = .10, ns), similar to findings in 1989 (ICC = .11, ns). Some change
was apparent, however, in male students views of successful managers
and men in general. Although male students still see successful managers
and men in general as similar (ICC = .40, p < .01), this value is significantly lower than findings in 1989 (ICC = .70, ns). Among female
students, almost no change was evident. As in 1989, we found a significant correlation between female students views of successful managers
and women in general (ICC = .35, p < .01 and ICC = .43, p < .01,
respectively, in our sample and the Schein et al. [1989] sample).
When students responded to the more specific target conditions of
men and women managers, there were no significant differences between
male and female students. There was a slight trend for female students
to view women managers as more similar to successful managers than
male students did (ICC = .91, p < .01 and ICC = .69, p < .01 for female
and male students, respectively); however, this difference did not reach
significance.
With respect to our second research question, there appear to be small
changes in the gender stereotypes of male students and no meaningful
changes among female students in the past 15 years. Specifically, male
students still exhibit some of the gender stereotypes found in past research
(viewing men and managers as more similar than women and managers);
however, the strength of the association between men and managers may
have lessened over time.
Assessing Change
832
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 5
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Across Samples for Ratings Within Condition
on the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index
Heilman et al. (1989) male managers correlated
with current sample of:
Condition
Successful middle
managers
Women in general
Men in general
Women managers
Men managers
Successful women
managers
Successful men
managers
Male
managers
Female
managers
Male
students
Female
students
.91
.92
.89
.92
.53
.86
.72
.92
.87
.43
.89
.60
.88
.85
.88
.88
.72
.87
.91
.74
.86
.72
.87
.90
.95
.96
.93
.94
833
TABLE 6
Mean Ratings on Gender and Leadership Scales by Sample and Condition
Heilman et al.
(1989) male
Male
Female
Male
managers managers managers students
Female
students
4.10
2.96
4.18
3.70 a
3.39 a
4.18 a
4.29 a
4.32 a
3.64 a
3.29 a
4.16 a
4.12 a,b
4.22 a,b
3.60 a
3.28 a
3.95 a
3.91 b
4.02 a,b
3.82 a
3.23 a
4.07 a
3.92 b
4.03 b
Women in general
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
2.58
3.63
2.75
3.06 a
3.62 a
3.38 a,b
3.85 a,b
3.69 a,b
3.14 a
3.71 a
3.64 a
4.04 a
3.94 a
2.66 b
3.71 a
2.89 c
3.55 b
3.45 b
2.98 a
3.77 a
3.26 b
3.86 a
3.80 a
Men in general
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
3.76
2.76
3.59
3.74 a
2.73 a
3.73 a
3.17 a
3.35 a
3.74 a
2.70 a
3.62 a
2.91 a
3.17 a
3.76 a
2.68 a
3.68 a
3.09 a
3.21 a
3.81 a
2.81 a
3.80 a
3.06 a
3.31 a
Women managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
3.52
2.99
3.54
3.51 a,b
3.46 a
3.69 a,b
3.87 a
3.83 a,b
3.74 a
3.22 a
4.04 c
3.92 a
4.05 a
3.28 b
3.40 a
3.42 a
3.72 a
3.65 b
3.71 a
3.43 a
3.84 b,c
3.91 a
3.94 a,b
Men managers
Agentic
Communal
Task-oriented
Relationship-oriented
Transformational
3.95
2.85
3.84
3.87 a
2.77 a
3.86 a,b
3.43 a
3.62 a
3.90 a
2.55 a
3.72 a
3.03 b
3.29 b
3.90 a
2.82 a
3.93 a,b
3.23 a,b
3.46 a,b
3.90 a
2.63 a
4.00 b
3.19 a,b
3.30 b
4.09
3.01
4.07
3.88 a
3.23 a
4.21 a
4.16 a
4.12 a,b
3.91 a
3.32 a
4.35 a
4.26 a
4.38 a
3.90 a
3.17 a
4.19 a
3.93 a
4.10 a,b
4.01 a
3.29 a
4.16 a
3.98 a
4.08 b
4.23
3.09
4.29
3.98 a
3.15 a,b
4.32 a
4.15 a
4.29 a
3.91 a
2.85 c
4.17 a
3.81 b
3.98 a,b
3.81 a
3.28 a
4.19 a
4.03 a,b
4.14 a,b
4.08 a
2.97 a,b,c
4.30 a
3.71 b
3.86 b
Note. ANOVAs were conducted on the present data only. Means in the same row that
do not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the Bonferroni post hoc comparison.
834
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
present scale means for each of the five scales (agentic, communal, taskoriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational) for each of the seven
conditions. These data are presented for our four samples as well as for the
Heilman et al. (1989) male managers; however, because the relationshiporiented and transformational scales were computed from new items, these
scales could not be computed from the Heilman et al. data. In addition,
we cannot compute effect sizes (d) or conduct tests of significance for
comparisons involving the Heilman et al. data because we have only mean
levels for target condition and scale. It is highly informative, however,
to examine the mean scale ratings across samples for changing trends. In
particular, change is evident in the scale ratings for the control condition of
successful middle managers. Relative to 1989 male managers, it appears
that current managers view successful managers as less agentic and more
communal. This movement toward greater balance in the stereotypically
male (agentic) and female (communal) characteristics of successful middle
managers is in line with arguments that modern leadership paradigms are
moving toward the feminine (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2003; Fondas, 1997).
Relative to the 1989 male managers, current samples also tend to rate
women in general higher on agentic characteristics.
A series of ANOVAs revealed the gender and leadership scales on
which our four samples vary significantly in their mean ratings (see
Table 6). ANOVAs were conducted within each target condition to identify where samples vary in their ratings. When the overall F statistic was
significant for any scale, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons4 were used
to identify which samples were significantly different. Throughout Table
6, means in the same row that do not share subscripts were significantly
different (p < .05). These findings are consistent with our earlier conclusion that male managers views appear to be changing, whereas male
students views have not. For example, when examining scale ratings for
the condition of women in general, there are no significant differences
among male and female managers for any of the five scales. In contrast,
male students rated women significantly lower on agentic characteristics
and task-oriented leadership relative to all other samples. As an important
comparison point, ANOVAs for the condition of men in general revealed
no significant differences for any scale ratings. These results provide further support for the notion that the variation in stereotypes across samples
stems from differing views of women.
Results presented in Table 6 also suggest a same-sex bias among
female respondents for the leadership scales. For example, when comparing the managerial samples, female managers rated women managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership, also rating men
4
Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were used to adjust the family-wise error rate to be
at or below the value initially set (p < .05) for all comparisons.
835
managers significantly lower on relationship-oriented and transformational leadership. Similarly, among student samples, female students rated
women managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership. This
pattern suggests that female respondents attribute more leadership behaviors to women relative to male respondents. When comparing mean scale
ratings between target conditions, female respondents often rate women
higher on leadership scales as compared to analogous ratings of men (e.g.,
female managers rated women managers higher than men managers on
task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational leadership).
In summary, results in Table 6 reveal several instances in which male
students ratings diverge from ratings made by other samples, particularly
for the condition of women in general. Results also suggest a same-sex
bias among female respondents for the leadership scales.
Individual Differences
In our results and in prior research (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge,
Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Schein et al., 1989), there has been clear evidence that managers and students, and men and women, hold different
gender stereotypes, diverging most in the attributes they assign to women.
Therefore, the purpose of our final analysis, addressing Research Question 5, was to examine the role of individual differences in predicting the
beliefs that our respondents hold about men, women, and managers. The
dependent variable for this analysis is a composite of the top 12 characteristics of successful managers. We combined the data across samples in
the successful manager condition to identify the 12 items rated as most
descriptive of successful middle managers. These items were combined
to form a composite of successful manager characteristics (alpha = .90;
see Appendix B).
Zero-order correlations are reported in Table 7. Due to the large sample (N = 1,271), many of the correlations reach statistical significance;
however, some correlations are noteworthy, including the relationship between age and education and having a female supervisor (r = .50,
p < .01 for age and r = .25, p < .01 for education). Our next step
was to regress the successful manager characteristics composite on the
demographic and experiential variables. Because our earlier results suggest that differences between samples were most frequent in the female
conditions, these conditions were the primary focus of our regression
analyses. R2 values reported in Table 8 indicate that individual differences
among respondents explain significant variance in two of the female conditions (21% for women in general, 25% for women managers) but not
for the analogous male conditions (3% for men in general, 6% for men
managers). Across these two female conditions, results indicate that men
are generally less likely than women to view women as having successful
836
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 7
Intercorrelations Among Individual Differences Characteristics and
the Successful Manager Composite
Variable
Gender
Age
.23
Education
.19
Manager status
.23
Female supervisor
.15
Satisfaction with female supervisor .01
Successful manager composite
.05
.57
.75
.50
.04
.08
.55
.25
.05
.03
.42
.06
.05
.10
.06
.10
Notes. Correlations greater than .06 are significant at p < .05 and correlations greater
than .08 are significant at p < .01. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 =
female, 2 = male), manager is dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is
coded (0 = no, 1 = yes).
TABLE 8
Regression Analyses Predicting Successful Manager Composite
Target condition
Successful
Successful
Men in
Men
men
Women in Women
women
general managers managers general managers managers
Gender
Age
Education
Manager status
Female supervisor
Satisfaction with
female supervisor
R2
.02
.02
.14
.10
.10
.00
.04
.02
.19
.10
.12
.03
.07
.17
.11
.10
.02
.00
Beta
.19
.14
.02
.10
.25
.28
.25
.24
.07
.02
.09
.36
.11
.13
.06
.20
.06
.12
.03
.06
.02
.21
.25
.04
p .05. p .01.
837
Discussion
838
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
the characteristics typically attributed to women. However, given the differences we find in male managers and students stereotypes, social role
theory explanations for the changes we found would apply only if social
roles have changed more drastically in work organizations than in the educational setting and family life, which represent the majority of college
students experiences with women. This is plausible because, despite their
increasing presence in work and leadership roles, women still continue to
be responsible for the bulk of home and child rearing duties (Cleveland
et al., 2000). Therefore, the differences we found between young male
students and middle-aged male managers in their views of women may
reflect their differential experiences with women in social roles. It is also
possible that when prompted with the condition of women in general,
male students and managers both envisioned their female peers, leading
male students to think of young female college students and male managers
to think of experienced female managers. Another reason why managers
views of women may be changing faster than students views is that they
are more likely than students to have been exposed to diversity training
focused on gender, which tends to identify stereotypes and promote inclusion (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Recent research (Rudman, et al., 2001)
demonstrated that such training can influence both explicit and implicit
stereotypes.
In contrast to real stereotype change, a quite different interpretation
of our results is that male managers have simply learned that they are
expected to view men and women similarly at work. Given the social
climate in modern organizations that stresses equal employment opportunities and diversity, it is possible that male managers responses to our
survey reflect socially desirable responding. This is a possibility that we
cannot rule out; however, all managers in our study were responding to an
anonymous survey used only for research purposes. Surveys were never
administered or viewed by anyone in the managers organization but were
mailed directly to the researchers. Therefore, we made every attempt to
elicit honest responses from participants.
The third plausible explanation of our results is that gender stereotyping has decreased at an explicit level but continues to exist at an implicit
level, such that participants are genuinely unaware of their gender-based
preferences and prejudices. As our main purpose was to compare gender
and management stereotypes today to those held 15 and 30 years ago,
it was crucial we use the same methodology used in past research. The
downside of this decision is that we were not able to benefit from advances
in stereotype assessment over the past 30 years. Key advances include ratio
approaches to the measurement of stereotypes (e.g., Cota, Reid, & Dion,
1991; Martell & DeSmet, 2001; Martin, 1987) and implicit techniques
that measure latent response times, such as the Implicit Association Test
839
840
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
as targets may reflect gender stereotyping that occurs primarily in the absence of specific information about an individual. It follows that our data
(and past studies using this approach) may tend to over represent gender
biases that actually exist in the hiring and promotion of women. Although
the purpose of our research was not to directly address discriminatory
hiring or promotion practices with respect to women, existing research
indicates that hiring discrimination that favors men has persisted (e.g.,
Jackson, Esses, & Burris, 2001). Our aim was to determine whether or not
stereotypes are changing over time. Whether or not the stereotypes elicited
in a survey like ours influence managers promotion and hiring decisions
is an empirical question, and Vecchio (2002) presented a comprehensive
agenda for gender research, which addresses such issues. A related limitation of our research is that we did not assess prescriptive stereotypes. Our
measure focused on how women are viewed but failed to capture current
views of how women should be. It is possible that male managers might
currently view women as more agentic than in the past, at the same time
retaining beliefs that women should not be agentic. If this is the case,
then women who have the characteristics of successful managers may be
evaluated more negatively in managerial roles because their behavior violates prescriptive stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman et al.,
2004).
Another limitation of our research is that our data do not allow us to
speak to the nature of the change we observed, which could be alpha (actual change in the construct), beta (change due to stretching or shrinking
of the measurement scale), or gamma (participants completely redefine
the construct; Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976). We interpret
our results as alpha change, as we have no reason to suspect that beta or
gamma changes are present when comparing the Descriptive Index over
time. Recalibration of the instrument (beta change) does not seem likely
as we find change only in ratings for certain, specific target conditions
and samples (e.g., women in general as rated by male managers). Because
there is no change in most conditions, it does not seem likely that the
instrument has been broadly recalibrated. The assessment of gamma
change is considerably more complicated because there is no a priori
factor structure intended in the Descriptive Index. Furthermore, even with
access to original data, we would have to compare the factor structure of
the index within target conditions, which would not be possible due to
relatively small samples within target condition. Because we found more
agreement than disagreement in scale-level ratings for each target condition, we posit alpha change as the most likely explanation of our results.
A strength of our research was the consideration of gender stereotypes relative to new leadership paradigms (i.e., transformational leadership behaviors). Given our central purposecomparing stereotypes of
841
842
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
843
Eagly AH. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Eagly AH, Carli LL. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807834.
Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and
men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569591.
Eagly AH, Johnson BT. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 223256.
Eagly AH, Karau SJ. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573598.
Epitropaki O, Martin R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 293310.
Fondas N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 257282.
Golembiewski RT, Billingsley K, Yeager S. (1976). Measuring change persistency in human
affairs: Types of changes generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Sciences, 12, 133157.
Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 427.
Greenwald AG, McGhee D, Schwartz JLK. (1998). Measuring individual differences in
implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 14641480.
Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC. (1989). Has anything changed? Current
characterizations of men, women, and managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
74, 935942.
Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to
women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 416427.
House RJ, Aditya RN. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal
of Management, 23, 409473.
Jackson LM, Esses VM, Burris CT. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination:
The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 4861.
Jayne M, Dipboye R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Research findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Management, 43, 409424.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A metaanalytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755
768.
Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
89, 3651.
Kanter RM. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kawakami K, Dovidio JF. (2001). The reliability of implicit stereotyping. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 212225.
Kunda Z, Spencer SJ. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color
judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522544.
Labianca G, Gray B, Brass DJ. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change
during empowerment. Organization Science, 11, 235257.
844
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Lueptow LB, Garovich-Szabo L, Lueptow MB. (2001). Social change and the persistence
of sex typing: 19741997. Social Forces, 80, 135.
Martell RF, DeSmet AL. (2001). A diagnostic-ratio approach to measuring beliefs about the
leadership abilities of male and female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 12231231.
Martin CL. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 489499.
McCauley C, Stitt DL. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929940.
Miliffe K, Piccolo RF, Judge TA. (2005, April). Consideration, initiating structure, and
transformational leadership. Poster presentation at the 21st Annual Conference of
the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Rudman LA, Ashmore RD, Gary ML. (2001). Unlearning automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 856868.
Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why
do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 87, 494509.
Rynes S, Rosen B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived
success of diversity training. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 247270.
Schein VE. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95100.
Schein VE. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,
340344.
Schein VE. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to womens progress in management. The Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675688.
Schein VE, Mueller R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439447.
Schein VE, Mueller R, Jacobson C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypes
and requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20,
103110.
Schein VE, Mueller R, Lituchy T, Liu J. (1996). Think managerThink male: A global
phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 3341.
Sczesny S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager
think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353363.
Sczesny S, Bosak J, Neff D, Schyns B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution of
leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51, 631645.
Seltzer J, Bass BM. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and consideration. Journal of Management, 16, 693703.
Stroh LK, Brett JM, Reilly AH. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of female and male
managers career progression. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251260.
Swim JK, Mallet R, Stangor C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use of
sexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117128.
Twenge JM. (1997a). Attitudes toward women, 19701995. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 3551.
Twenge JM. (1997b). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis.
Sex Roles, 36, 305325.
Vecchio RP. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643
671.
Vecchio RP. (2003). In search of gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835850.
845
Welle B. (2004, April). Whats holding women back? Barriers to womens advancement as
perceived by top executives. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Wellington S, Kropf MB, Gerkovich PR. (2003). Whats holding women back? Harvard
Business Review, 81, 1819.
Ziegert JC, Hanges PJ. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes,
motivation, and a climate for racial bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
553562.
APPENDIX A
Items in Various Scales
Agentic Characteristics
Aggressive
Ambitious
Analytical Ability
Assertive
Dominant
Forceful
Self-confident
Communal Characteristics
Aware of the feelings of others
Creative
Helpful
Kind
Passive
Submissive
Sympathetic
Task-Oriented Leadership
Competent
Competitive
Decisive
Independent
Industrious
Intelligent
Logical
Objective
Skilled in business matters
Speedy recovery from emotional disturbances
Relationship-Oriented Leadership
Compassionate
Cooperative
Fair
Good listener
Inclusive
Intuitive
Shows appreciation
Sociable
Tactful
Understanding
Transformational Leadership
Considerate
Encouraging
Energetic
Enthusiastic
Inspiring
Open-minded
Optimistic
Sense of purpose
Sincere
Supportive
Trustworthy
Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.
846
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
APPENDIX B
Items Rated Most Characteristic of Successful Middle Managers
Attribute
Leadership ability
Competent
Knowledgeable
Consistent
Self-confident
Trustworthy
Self-controlled
Well-informed
Intelligent
Fair
Sense of purpose
Skilled in business matters
Mean rating
4.61
4.58
4.49
4.48
4.43
4.37
4.35
4.35
4.34
4.33
4.33
4.33
Note. These items were selected from the total 118 adjectives as those most highly
endorsed in the successful middle manager condition. N = 215 list-wise.
Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.