Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms.

Abstract

This meta-analysis examined the extent to which stereotypes of leaders are culturally masculine. The primary studies fit into 1 of 3 paradigms: (a) In Schein's (1973) think manager-think male paradigm, 40 studies with 51 effect sizes compared the similarity of male and leader stereotypes and the similarity of female and leader stereotypes; (b) in Powell and Butterfield's (1979) agency-communion paradigm, 22 studies with 47 effect sizes compared stereotypes of leaders' agency and communion; and (c) in Shinar's (1975) masculinity-femininity paradigm, 7 studies with 101 effect sizes represented stereotypes of leadership-related occupations on a single masculinity-femininity dimension. Analyses implemented appropriate random and mixed effects models. All 3 paradigms demonstrated overall masculinity of leader stereotypes: (a) In the think manager-think male paradigm, intraclass correlation = .25 for the women-leaders similarity and intraclass correlation = .62 for the men-leaders similarity; (b) in the agency-communion paradigm, g = 1.55, indicating greater agency than communion; and (c) in the masculinity-femininity paradigm, g = 0.92, indicating greater masculinity than the androgynous scale midpoint. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses indicated that this masculine construal of leadership has decreased over time and was greater for male than female research participants. In addition, stereotypes portrayed leaders as less masculine in educational organizations than in other domains and in moderate- than in high-status leader roles. This article considers the relation of these findings to Eagly and Karau's (2002) role congruity theory, which proposed contextual influences on the incongruity between stereotypes of women and leaders. The implications for prejudice against women leaders are also considered.

Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.

“…In fact, leader stereotypes are linked to both agency and masculinity, but there is a mismatch between leader stereotypes and stereotypes of women (see Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011;Powell & Butterfield, 1979;Schein, 1973). As mentioned previously, leadership ability is a prescriptive trait for men (representing a consensual belief about how men ought to behave), but it is not a prescriptive trait for women (Rudman et al, 2012b, p. 168).…”

The communality-bonus effect for male transformational leaders – leadership style, gender, and promotability

“…Due to prescriptive stereotypes that women should not behave in a highly agentic manner, female leaders have often been evaluated more negatively than male leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). However, in contemporary organizations, leadership also requires communality such as empathy and taking care of others, which is reflected in current perceptions of leadership to a certain degree (Koenig, Mitchell, Eagly, & Ristikari, 2011). Transformational leadership addresses such communal requirements, because it incorporates behaviours for relationship building (Kark & Shamir, 2013).…”

Perceptions of facial dominance, trustworthiness and attractiveness predict managerial pay awards in experimental tasks

“…The implicit assumptions that lay individuals hold concerning leadership have been found to reflect eight leader attributes, namely sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and strength (Offerman, Kennedy & Wirtz, 1994). Studies show that maleness (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell & Ristikari, 2011) and height (Blaker, et al, 2013) are implicitly associated with more positive leadership perceptions. These findings illustrate that evaluations of leaders can be derived from very limited and superficial cues to leadership, which supports the limited-capacity model of implicit evaluations of leadership described by Lord and Maher (1991).…”