How perceived riskiness influences the selection of women and men as senior leaders

Abstract

This study investigates the role of perceived riskiness in senior leadership selection decisions. Perceived riskiness is defined as the degree of uncertainty and the significance of the outcomes from the selection decision. Hypotheses that perceived riskiness is a mediator between a candidate's qualifications and selection as well as salary offer, and that gender moderates those relationships, were examined through structural equation modeling and logistic regression. A sample of 253 individuals with prior experience in hiring and promotion decisions responded to an online survey where they read a job description and candidate profile summary of one of the following: a highly qualified female, a highly qualified male, a moderately qualified female, or a moderately qualified male. The results demonstrated a complementary mediating effect of perceived riskiness between a candidate's qualifications and their selection, and between a candidate's qualifications and their salary offer. In addition, gender moderates the pathway from qualifications to perceived riskiness in that highly qualified women were perceived as less risky for senior leadership than highly qualified men, while moderately qualified women were seen as riskier for senior leadership than moderately qualified men. We offer recommendations for human resource professionals and hiring managers to recognize and mitigate the perceived riskiness of women in the selection process for senior leadership roles.

Women's career equality and leadership in organizations: Creating an evidence‐based positive change

“…These findings are from numerous contexts and stakeholder groups such as CEOs and Board members in businesses (Glass & Cook, 2018), women and men engineers (Guillén et al, 2018), women engineers (Singh et al, 2018), women and men employees in the United Kingdom (Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2018) and in Germany (Mölders et al, 2018), "professionally-employed new mothers in the United States as they transitioned back to work" (Ladge et al, 2018), and experiments looking at perceived riskiness of hiring women compared to men leaders (Van Esch et al, 2018). The studies focused on women in contrast to men or system-level phenomena.…”

“…issues related to issues in accessing or maintaining organizational membership and selection for leadership roles, and positive careerdevelopment experiences across life phases, noting occupational and organizational differences. They do so using a wide array of theoretical perspectives and with attention to hiring riskiness for leader roles(Van Esch, Hopkins, O'Neil, & Bilimoria, 2018), retention(Ladge, Humberd, & Eddleston, 2018), turnover(Singh, Zhang, Wan, & Fouad, 2018), and use of quotas to lessen the impact of gender stereotypes on evaluation of women (Mölders, Brosi, Bekk, Spörrle, & Welp, 2018) and aspiration and advancement in top positions and spheres of influence (Fritz & van Knippenberg, 2018; Glass & Cook, 2018; Gould, Kulik, & Sardeshmukh; Guillén, Mayo, & Karelaia, 2018). The research is quantitative and qualitative, offering generalizable outcomes for policy considerations as well as depth and breadth.…”

Can institutionalized workplace structures benefit senior women leaders?

“…When women exhibit male-typed ability, they are less effective and have less legitimacy than males occupying a similar position (Joshi, Son, & Roh, 2015). In comparison to a man who is similarly qualified, extant research suggests women appointed to senior leadership positions are a risk (van Esch, Hopkins, O'Neil & Bilimoria, 2018). For instance, women tend not to exhibit the ideal diffuse characteristics associated with the effective leader (Baretto & Hogg, 2018), yet training designed to increase the ability of group members can reduce status inequality effects (Cohen & Lotan, 1995;Ridgeway & Correll, 2006;Troyer, Younts, & Kalkhoff, 2001;Walker, Doerer, & Webster, 2014).…”

Barriers to the C-Suite: The Impact of Perceptions of Gender Bias on Women Leaders’ Senior Leadership Ambitions

“…is indeed greater for men than it is for women, this difference is 14 times greater than the difference between performance evaluations. As such, it appears that differences in opportunities given cannot be attributed to performance evaluations alone (Joshi et al, 2015;Van Esch et al, 2018).…”

“…The Perceived Riskiness of Women. An additional reason for this discrepancy is that organizations are often more reluctant to promote women leaders or help them develop for senior leadership positions because they deem it a bigger risk (Van Esch et al, 2018;Barsh & Yee, 2011). In other words, despite the fact that support from organizations is crucial for women's advancement and development (Chesterman & Ross-Smith, 2006), employers may subtly discriminate against promoting a woman in the event that she will leave the position following a pregnancy or related family issue (Hewlett & Luce, 2005;Javdani & McGee, 2019).…”