* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download GENDER AND LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES EVALUATION: the
Social construction of gender wikipedia , lookup
Sex and gender distinction wikipedia , lookup
Sex differences in intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Causes of transsexuality wikipedia , lookup
Gender and development wikipedia , lookup
Masculinity wikipedia , lookup
Sex differences in psychology wikipedia , lookup
Feminism in the United States wikipedia , lookup
New feminism wikipedia , lookup
Gender role wikipedia , lookup
Media and gender wikipedia , lookup
Special measures for gender equality in the United Nations wikipedia , lookup
Anarcha-feminism wikipedia , lookup
Gender and security sector reform wikipedia , lookup
Michael Messner wikipedia , lookup
Gender roles in childhood wikipedia , lookup
Gender inequality wikipedia , lookup
Third gender wikipedia , lookup
Gender apartheid wikipedia , lookup
Feminism (international relations) wikipedia , lookup
Gender roles in Islam wikipedia , lookup
Judith Lorber wikipedia , lookup
Gender systems wikipedia , lookup
Sex differences in humans wikipedia , lookup
Gender roles in non-heterosexual communities wikipedia , lookup
GENDER AND LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES EVALUATION: the moderating effect of culture María José Bosch Abstract The scientific research of sex differences began in the 70’s and remains an important area of study (Hoyt, Simon, & Reid, 2009). A major component of this research is the prejudice against female leaders that results from the difference between gender stereotype and leadership stereotype (Eagly & Karau, 2002). These differences exist worldwide. The globalization of management brings to the forefront the need to examine this stereotype phenomenon in cross cultural arena (Schein, 2001). The purpose of this paper is to examine the effect of gender on leadership competencies evaluation, and the moderating role of culture. Data were collected from managers and subordinates in 15 countries representing all major regions of the world. Results show that there is a moderating role of culture: in high collectivistic cultures and in high embedded cultures the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women is smaller than in low collectivistic and low embedded cultures. Implications for research on leadership competencies, gender, and cross-cultural management are discussed. 2 Introduction As more women ascent into managerial positions, more attention is put on weather they lead in a different manner than men. An important aspect in the study of gender differences in managerial style is the effect of gender stereotypes (Davis, Spencer, & Steele, 2005; Heilman & Eagly, 2008; Heilman, 2001). When people hold stereotypes about someone, they expect this person to show characteristics and behaviors consistent with those stereotypes (Eagly & Carli, 2003a; Eagly & Carli, 2003b). The main problem women leaders’ face is the difference between the stereotypes of her leader role and her gender role (Eagly & Karau, 2002). This difference cause female leaders to be perceived less favorable than equivalent male leaders, because by fulfilling expectations concerning leadership, they violate conventions concerning appropriate female behaviors (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Gender prejudice is culturally sensitive. Cultures affects peoples’ personal and social experiences, these experiences influence how people place gender roles, and also how people formulate perceptions of others (Paris, 2004). Most research on gender is ethnocentrical and focused on the Western world, but lately researchers have started to incorporate the effect of culture (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006; Rowley, Hossain, & Barry, 2010). This paper analyzes gender differences in the evaluation of leadership competencies across different cultures. Theoretical Background Gender Studies Many researchers have studied if men and women lead a different manner. But research show mixed results. On the one hand, academic leadership researchers, based on quantitative results and meta-analysis, claim that there are no significant differences 3 between the managerial style of men and women (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2007; Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Helgesen, 1990). An argument in favor for no significant differences in the managerial style between men and women is that the leadership role influences the behavior of the person in that role. Thus, men and women in similar roles would behave alike. On the other hand, authors with substantial organizational experience based on qualitative and anecdotal evidence, argue for the presence of gender differences in managerial styles (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Powell, 1990). An argument in favor for differences in the managerial style between men and women is that managers are not only affected by their leadership role constrains, but also by their gender differences (Carli, 2001). Most research on male and female leadership studies was conducted prior to 1990 (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). Usually, these studies differentiate between two types of leadership styles: task-oriented style and interpersonally oriented style. A smaller group distinguishes between democratic and autocratic style, or similarly between participative and directive leadership. Eagly and Johnson Meta Analysis (1990) shows that there is a small tendency for women to manifest more of the interpersonally oriented behavior than men. Also, this Meta Analysis found that women adopted a more democratic or participative style and a less autocratic or directive style than men. On recent years, the focus of research on leadership style of women and men has changed. Nowadays researches try to understand which styles are more effective in contemporary conditions faced by organizations (Eagly & Carli, 2003a). The frameworks used more often are the ones proposed initially by Burns (1978), and afterwards elaborated by Bass (1990), Transformational and Transactional leadership styles. A Meta Analysis (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003) showed that 4 female leaders exert more transformational behaviors and contingent reward transactional behaviors than men. Gender Prejudice A relevant aspect that comes out in most studies of gender differences in leadership styles is the prejudice against female leaders. The prejudice results from the inconsistency between gender stereotypes and leadership stereotypes (Hoyt, Simon, & Reid, 2009). The problem for female leaders is that gender stereotypes are automatically activated (Kunda & Spencer, 2003) especially where leadership roles are characterized with masculine and not feminine attributes. The masculine attributes of leadership results in people having similar beliefs about leaders and men, but different beliefs about leaders and women (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Another important problem of stereotypes is its effect over the evaluation of women leaders. Although empirical studies have shown that women and men behave alike, there is an important difference in work outcome among male and female leaders (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008). A common explanation for this difference in work outcome is that the same behavior showed by a men or a women are perceived differently because of sex roles (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Different studies on evaluation of male and female performance on a wide variety of tasks show a general effect favoring male expertise (Carli, 2001; Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008; Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989; Wood & Karten, 1986). Also, there is evidence that while male leaders receive similar evaluation from men and women, female leaders receive less favorable evaluation from men (Eagly & Carli, 2003a; Schein, 2001) . 5 Gender Prejudice and Leadership Competencies In the last years, there is an increasing interest to understand how prejudice affects the evaluation of leaders (Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006; Heilman & Eagly, 2008). In most of these studies, women are the center of attention. This is natural, because social perceivers usually focus on the non-prototypical members of categories (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2007). In general, leadership has been predominately a masculine privilege, and women remain quite rare as elite leaders and top executives. Therefore, most research on the impact of gender on leadership is centered on female leaders (Carli, 2001; Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Carli, 2004; Karau & Eagly, 1999). The environment and specific task women perform are very important to study and understand female prejudice. For example, there is evidence that women face more prejudice when they work in an industry incongruent with their gender role than when they work in industries more congruent with their gender role, like hospitals or schools (Garcia-Retamero & Lopez-Zafra, 2006). Furthermore, the characteristics associated with leadership roles have been related more to men than to women (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Therefore, it is assumed that leadership is more similar to the masculine gender role than to the feminine gender role (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Consequently, women that work in leadership positions face more prejudice and therefore are evaluated worse than their male counterpart. Role congruity theory is one possible mechanism to explain how gender affects leadership competencies evaluation. Role congruity theory suggests that, when a perceiver finds incongruent behaviors from a stereotype group member, this inconsistency lowers the evaluation of the group member (Eagly & Karau, 2002). In general, social roles are central to how we think and make judgments about people 6 (Kidder, 2002), and affects our assessment of others performance. More specifically, gender roles focus on consensual beliefs that describe qualities and behavioral tendencies that are desirable for each sex (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Role congruity theory extents social role theory of sex differences and focuses on the incongruity between female gender role and leadership roles. Furthermore, research focused on the relation between gender and leaders behaviors, has determined that perceptions of leaders behaviors are affected by socially constructed gender roles (Kidder & McLean Parks, 2001). Eagly et al. (1992) suggest that women showing behaviors that are perceived as masculine are devalued relative to their male counterparts. Men, on the other hand, are not penalized if they lead in a feminine manner (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Also, Kark et al. (2005) suggest that individuals’ behaviors, such as OCB, displayed by women might be unnoticed. Women are expected to show these types of behaviors, therefore they will be judged with very high standard. Consequently, even if a woman performs at a similar level than a man, the man will be evaluated higher than the woman. Hence, the incongruity between gender role and leadership role will affect the leaders’ evaluation if the leader is a woman. In conclusion, I expect women to have a lower evaluation in their leadership competencies than men. H1: Women will have a lower evaluation in their leadership competencies than men. Gender Stereotypes, Leadership, and Culture Most of the studies about gender differences in leadership style have been developed locally and mainly centered towards the Western world (Rowley, Hossain, & Barry, 2010). Recent studies have started to address the gender effect in leadership across different cultures. In the GLOBE project, for example, the authors propose that the 7 difficulties facing women leaders are universal not culturally specific (Javidan, Dorfman, Sully de Luque, & House, 2006). In the same direction, Schein (2007) supports that women find it harder to reach leadership positions in diverse cultures due to gender discrimination. However, to date, we are not aware of empirical studies addressing the moderating role of culture on the relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies. There is evidence that culture moderates the relation between gender and leadership characteristics. For example, Paris (2004) shows that power distance and gender egalitarianism moderates the relation between gender and the perception of different leadership attributes, such as team oriented leadership and self-protective leadership. Furthermore, there is evidence that culture moderates the perception of masculine traits when people describe managers. For example, the think-manager-think-male stereotype is present in both, female and male German managers, while only in Australian and Indian male managers (Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, & Schyns, 2004). Therefore, it is possible that culture also moderates the relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies. Masculinity The cultural value masculinity proposed by Hofstede, focuses on the divisions of roles between the sexes in a society (Hofstede, 1983). It tries to measure if the social sex role division is low or high. On the one hand, masculine cultures emphasize traditional masculine values, such as competitiveness, being tough, and the acquisition of money and material objects. On the other hand, feminine cultures emphasize values such as helping others, putting relationships with people before money, and quality of life (Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 2005) . 8 One possible mechanism to explain how culture may affect the influence of gender on leadership competencies assessment is social norms. Social norms are prescriptive rules that can be understood by observing visible characteristics of a society (Appelbaum, Carr, Duneir, & Giddens, 2009). For example, from a socio-cultural perspective, gender-typical social roles are based on observations of behaviors, and validate different perspectives such as men are breadwinners and women are homemakers (Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, & Schyns, 2004). If in a society managers are characterized with more male attributes, this will generate higher incongruities between female stereotypes and manager stereotypes. On the contrary, if in a society managers are characterized with female and male attributes, this will generate lower incongruities between female stereotypes and managers stereotypes. In high masculinity cultures, men are expected to be assertive and though, while women are expected to be modest and tender (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). Therefore, gender-typical social roles will be very different between men and women. In low masculinity cultures however, men and women are expected to be modest and tender. Thus, gender-typical social roles between men and women in low masculinity cultures should not be so different. Hence, we can expect that the difference between leadership roles and female roles will be bigger in high masculinity cultures, while they will be smaller in low masculinity cultures. Consequently, we can suppose that the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women will be smaller in low masculinity cultures than in high masculinity cultures. H2: The difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women will be smaller in low masculinity cultures than in high masculinity cultures. . Collectivism-Embeddedness 9 Cross-cultural research usually explains cultural differences around Individualismcollectivism (IC) values. Recent reviews on cross-cultural studies on Organizational Behavior, suggest that future research should include other constructs that may explain cultural differences (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). Dickson, Den Hartog and Mitchelon (2003) suggest that Embeddedness proposed by Schwartz (1999) is similar to Individualism-collectivism proposed by Hofestede. Hence, it is interesting to understand if these two cultural frameworks show similar findings, or if they show differences that enhance the understanding of cross cultural differences. IC proposed by Hofstede, focuses on the relation between the individual and her fellow individuals (Hofstede, 2005; Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). A main aspect of IC is the ties among individuals, whether they are loose or tight. On the one hand, in individualistic societies people look after their own interest, while on the other hand, in collectivistic societies people look after the interest of their in-group (Hofstede, 1983). With a slightly different approach, embeddedness proposed by Schwartz, focuses on the extent to which people in societies are autonomous versus embedded in the group (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). On the one hand, in autonomous cultures people value independence and their personal achievement. On the other hand, in embedded cultures people feel part of the collectivity and find meaning through participating in the group and sharing its goals and achievements. Although these two cultural frameworks are very similar, they are not the same. An individualistic culture is not necessary autonomous, and an autonomous culture is not necessary individualistic. Therefore, I will analyze them as two different cultural values. Another possible mechanism to explain how culture may affect the influence of gender on leadership competencies assessment is in-group theory. An important characteristic of embedded and collectivistic cultures is the difference between in-groups and out- 10 groups. In high collectivistic and high embedded cultures, individuals develop strong relations with their in-groups. Individuals feel part of the group and indentify themselves with the groups goals (Schwartz, 1999), also they expect their in-group to look after them (Hofstede, 1980). There is evidence that collectivistic cultures give more generous evaluation to in-group members than individualistic cultures (Gomez, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2000). An example of in-groups relations is Leadership-Member exchange Theory (LMX). LMX focuses on the interaction between leaders and followers (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995). This theory distinguishes between in-groups and out-groups relations. In-groups generate high quality relationships. High quality LMX relationships generate mutual trust, respect and obligation (Brower, Schoorman, & Tan, 2000), reducing the possible bias in the judgment of the leader (Heilman, 2001). Hence, collectivistic and embedded cultures may promote high quality LMX relationships among the members of their social group. The rational behind this effect is that in both, collectivistic and embedded cultures, individuals emphasize their relation with other members of their collectivity (Francesco & Chen, 2004), fostering in-group relations. Finally, the activation of prejudice about women and men by gender-related cues might be corrected by the perceiver. Evidence suggests that prejudice is stronger and harder to discourage with out-group members (Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002). In order to avoid the activation of prejudice, individuals must be aware of its automatic activation process, and have the intention and motivation to counter its influence. This is harder with out-group members than with in-group members (Devine, 1989). In line with previous research, we can expect to find more in-group relations in collectivistic and embedded cultures, than in individualistic and autonomous cultures. Thus, we can expect that the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies 11 between men and women will be smaller in high collectivistic and high embedded cultures, than in low collectivistic and low embedded cultures. H3a: The difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women will be smaller in high collectivistic cultures. H3b: The difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women will be smaller in high embedded cultures. Method Sample and Procedure In order to choose relevant countries for this study, I use Sagiv and Shwartz (2007) framework of seven cultural regions: Latin America, Confucian, West Europe, Africa and Middle East, South Asia, East Europe, and English Speaking countries. Data was collected by CCMN collaborators from 15 countries across the seven regions. Table 1 provides details about the sample size and other key variables for every country and corresponding region. --------------------------------------Insert Table 1 around here --------------------------------------CCMN collaborators contacted managers to represent as wide a variety of sectors and organizations as possible, not allowing for more than 10% respondents from the same company for each country. The sample contains middle and top managers who work in both public and private sector. In this study I am interest in the difference between men and women evaluation, so I measured competencies using subordinates` responses. Collaborators contacted managers in each country directly and asked them to choose three subordinates as raters. In the questionnaire, subordinates rated different competencies of their managers`. 12 Collaborators collected the responses through either hard copy or electronic format. The choice between hard copy and electronic format was determined by the preference of the respondents being surveyed. The layout of both, hard copy or electronic format was identical. Overall, we send 2515 that yield in 1580 subordinates responses (65 % response rate). The final sample ranges from 57 to 156 responses per country. The 29.1% of all managers were female (see Table 1) Measures Leadership competencies: to measure the leadership competency dimensions I use the culturally stable model proposed in the first paper of this thesis. This variables show measurement invariance (Bosch & Cardona, 2010). The scale used in the questionnaire is a five point scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to “Never” and 5 corresponds to “Always”. The items were specifically written for the managersubordinate context, including “My supervisor knows the company’s strengths and the strengths of the competition” and “My supervisor lets me participate in the decisionmaking”. The leadership competencies consist of 26 items. The items were average to create a scale score at the manager level (α=.96). To aggregate the manager scores, I calculate an average score of subordinate’s ratings of their manager’s external, interpersonal, and personal leadership competencies. ICC scores provided support for this aggregation (ICC(1)=0.40, ICC(2)=0.67). Cultural dimensions: I used as cultural measure the country-level scores of masculinity and collectivism used by Hofstede and Hofstede (Hofstede, 2005), and embeddedness used by Schwartz (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007). See Table 1 for the list of the countries and their masculinity, collectivism, and embeddedness mean scores. 13 Gender: to distinguish between men and female leaders, I assigned a Dummy to the gender of the manager, 0 for male managers and 1 for female. Data Analysis All analyses were conducted at the manager level (n=527). Hypotheses were tested in two interlinked steps. First, I test the relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies (H1). Second, I test the moderating effect of culture over the relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies (H2 and H3). The software packages used for the data analysis are: MPlus 5.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2007) and STATA 11 (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008). Results First, I test for the possible cultural level effect in the data, calculating the variance component and intraclass correlation (ICC) for leadership competencies across cultures. The analysis showed that 82% of the variance consist of between manager variance, and 18% of the variance consist of the between cultural variance. Although the between cultural variance is moderate, it is above the recommended value of 0.05 (Bliese & Hanges, 2004), therefore I need to explicitly account for the cultural-level effect in the analysis. Therefore I include the culture as a fixed effect in the analysis. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics, and correlations coefficient for the variables at the manager level. --------------------------------------Insert Table 2 around here --------------------------------------I expected a negative relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies. As table 3 shows, there is no support for this hypothesis (Table 3, model 1: B=-0.164, SE=0.07, ns). 14 --------------------------------------Insert Table 3 around here --------------------------------------To test hypothesis H2, H3a and H3b, I build interaction terms. First, I standardize the variables and then construct the interaction terms (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998). The hypothesis 2, 3a and 3b predicted the moderating effect of masculinity, collectivism and embeddedness respectively. The results are presented in Table 3. I expected that the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women would be smaller in low masculinity cultures (H2). Results do not support this hypothesis (B=-.05, SE=.07, n.s.). Masculinity did not show significance, nor evidence of substantial effect in the evaluation of leadership competencies. Therefore, I did not include masculinity in the future analyzes. Also, I expected that the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women would be smaller in high collectivistic (H3a) and in high embedded cultures (H3b). Results support the expectations for hypothesis 3a (Table 3, model 2: B=0.51, SE=0.29, p>0.076) and 3b (Table 3, model 2: B=0.687, SE=0.33, p>0.037). The moderating effect of collectivism and embeddedness is plotted in Figure 1. --------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 around here --------------------------------------- Discussion To the best of our knowledge, this is the first large scale empirical study that focuses on the difference between the leadership competencies’ evaluation between men and women across cultures. Several authors emphasize the need to study the difference in evaluation between men and women, and relate this prejudice to culture (Schein, 2007). 15 Gender prejudice has been studied mostly in a single country context, showing the barriers women face in their progress in managerial positions. Although I predicted a direct relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies, results do not support this hypothesis. These findings suggest that role congruity theory might not be the only mechanism moderating the relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies. For example, it is possible that other mechanisms, such a LMX that focuses on the interaction between leaders and followers, might also affect the evaluation of the leader. High quality LMX relationships reduce the bias in the evaluations of the leader. Both, men and women can generate high quality LMX relationships with their subordinates, counterbalancing the effect of role exchange theory. The core of this paper was to explore the moderating role of culture on the relationship between gender and the evaluation of the leader. A surprising result is that our findings do not support the moderating role of masculinity in the relationship between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies. One possible explanation, may lay in the fact that masculinity includes different topics such as: gender role division, assertiveness, dominance, among others. This is one of the reasons why this dimension is one of the most critiqued of Hofstede’s dimensions (Dickson, Den Hartog, & Mitchelson, 2003). The main critique is that masculinity is not well measured, that it includes too many different topics, and that these topics are not related. In order to address these concerns, the GLOBE study measured these aspects of masculinity separately, naming them “assertiveness” and “gender egalitarianism”. These different topics may have divergent effects on the moderating role of masculinity in the relation between gender and the evaluation of leadership competencies. 16 In line with expectations, results show that in high collectivistic cultures, the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women was smaller than in low collectivistic cultures. Also, results show that in high embedded cultures, the difference in evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women was smaller than in low embedded cultures. Nevertheless, results show that there are small but important differences between the moderating effect of collectivism and embeddedness. Both cultural values reduce the distance in the evaluation of leadership competencies between men and women, but in high embedded cultures the difference is eliminated. A possible explanation for this difference, may lay in the fact that embedded cultures not only focus on the social relations among the individuals, but also focus on the value that societies give to social order and tradition. Individuals in embedded cultures avoid actions that could disturb the in-group solidarity or the traditional order (Sagiv & Schwartz, 2007). Therefore, in embedded cultures individuals that are part of a group might have a higher motivation to respond without prejudice, not only because their leader is part of their in-group, but also because they want to avoid conflict and maintain the status quo. These results show that including cultural moderators provide more insights in explaining gender differences. Implications for Managers Women are increasing their participation in many organizational contexts and this is promoting a lot of changes (Bianchi, Milkie, Sayer, & Robinson, 2000). Although they have reached different managerial positions, they still remain rare in the top executive ones. 17 This study shows relevant implications for managers. Results show that culture moderates the prejudice towards women. Consequently, managers can take actions to reduce this prejudice. First, managers should place more emphasis in activating the internal motivation of their subordinates, so they can respond with less prejudice. Also, they can support ingroup relations in more individualistic and autonomous cultures to reduce the prejudice towards women in their team works. As well, organizations can adapt their Human Resource policies in order to reduce the segregation by sex for some positions. For example, they can add feminine attributes to the definitions of managerial roles. . Furthermore, organizations can adapt their Human Resources policies in different countries in order to reduce prejudice. Also, they can be aware that women will face more barriers in some cultures than others, so they can take measures to reduce these barriers. For example, an organization will need to apply different Human Resource policies in China (collectivistic culture) where prejudice is low, than in the US (individualistic culture) where prejudice is high. Also, managers will need to put more effort in their teams to reduce prejudice in the UK (autonomous cultures), than in Egypt (embedded cultures). Limitations and future research A limitation of the current study is the lack of information of the subordinate’s gender. There is evidence that gender of the subordinate affects the evaluation of men and women. Future research could analyze if culture also moderates the effect of the subordinates gender on the evaluation of the leaders. Additionally, this study focuses on cultural norms at the societal level and not at the individual level. This approach is consistent with this study that is centred on how gender, at the societal level, generates prejudice towards women. Other cross-cultural comparative research also uses this approach (Atwater, Wang, Smither, & Fleenor, 2009). Still, it may be interesting for future research to analyze if values at the individual level provide more 18 insights in the activation of prejudice towards women. Finally, I only focused on three cultural values, masculinity, collectivism and embeddedness. Future studies would benefit from the use of more cultural values. In conclusion, this study shows that culture moderates the effects of gender in the evaluation of leadership competencies. Our results show that precisely in cultures where women are more present in the work place, the prejudice tend to be higher. We hope that women will encounter less prejudice problems in entering the managerial positions in the developing countries. 19 References Appelbaum, R. P., Carr, D., Duneir, M., & Giddens, A. 2009. Conformity, deviance, and crime. In Introduction to sociology. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. Atwater, L., Wang, M., Smither, J. W., & Fleenor, J. W. 2009. Are cultural characteristics associated with the relationship between self and others' ratings of leadership? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4): 876-886. Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press. Bianchi, S. M., Milkie, M. A., Sayer, L. C., & Robinson, J. P. 2000. Is anyone doing the housework? trends in the gender division of household labor. Social Forces, 79(1): 191228. Bliese, P. D., & Hanges, P. J. 2004. Being both too liberal and too conservative: The perils of treating grouped data as though they were independent. Organizational Research Methods, 7(4): 400. Bosch, M. J., & Cardona, P. 2010. A map of managerial competencies: A 15 country study. Paper presented at Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Montreal. Brower, H. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Tan, H. H. 2000. A model of relational leadership: The integration of trust and leader-member exchange. Leadership Quarterly, 11(2): 227-250. Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper & Row. 20 Carli, L. L. 2001. Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4): 725741. Davis, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. 2005. Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88: 276-287. Devine, P. G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(1): 5-18. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. 2002. The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(5): 835-848. Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. 2003. Research on leadership in a cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 729. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2003a. The female leadership advantage: An evolution of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 807-834. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2003b. Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: Systematic research integration is the solution. Leadership Quarterly, 14: 851-859. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2007. Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review. 21 Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. 2007. Leadership styles matters: The small, but important, style differences between male and female leaders. In D. Bilimoria & S. K. Piderit (Ed.): 279. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. 1990. Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2): 233-256. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice towards female leaders. [Washington, etc.]: American Psychological Association (PsycARTICLES). Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1): 3-22. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. 2004. Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of leadership: 279–301. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. 2003. Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 569-591. Francesco, A. M., & Chen, Z. X. 2004. Collectivism in action. Group & Organization Management, 29(4): 425. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Lopez-Zafra, E. 2006. Prejudice against women in malecongenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55: 51-61. 22 Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. 2007. Cross-cultural organizational behavior. Annual Review of Psychology. Gomez, C., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2000. The impact of collectivism and ingroup/out-group membership on the evaluation generosity of team members. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6): 1097-1106. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. 1995. Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219-247. Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. 2008. Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Industrial Organizational Psychology, 1: 393398. Heilman, M. E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 657-674. Helgesen, S. 1990. The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York: Doubleday Currency. Hofmann, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. 1998. Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24: 623641. Hofstede, G. 1983. The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2): 75-89. 23 Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly HiUs, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. J. 2005. Cultures and organizations: Software for the mindMcGraw-Hill. Hoyt, C. L., Simon, S., & Reid, L. 2009. Choosing the best (wo) man for the job: The effects of mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2): 233-246. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., Sully de Luque, M., & House, R. 2006. In the eye of the beholder. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 20: 67-90. Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. 2008. The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototype on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106: 39-60. Karau, S. J., & Eagly, A. H. 1999. Invited reaction: Gender, social roles, and the emergence of leaders. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4): 321-327. Kark, R., & Waismel-Manor, R. 2005. Organizational citizenship behavior: What's gender got to do with it. Organization, 12(6): 889-917. Kidder, D. L. 2002. The influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Management, 28(5): 629-648. Kidder, D. L., & McLean Parks, J. 2001. The good soldier: Who is s(he). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 939-959. 24 Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. 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(4): 522-544. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2007. Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Paris, L. D. 2004. The effects of gender and culture on implicit leadership theories: A cross-cultural study. Academy of Management Best Conference Paper. Powell, G. N. 1990. One more time: Do male and female managers differ? Academy of Management Executive, 12: 731-743. Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. 2008. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata (2nd Ed. ed.). College Station, TX: Stata Press. Rowley, S., Hossain, F., & Barry, P. 2010. Leadership through a gender lens: How cultural environments and theoretical perspectives interact with gender. International Journal of Public Administration, 33: 81-87. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. 2007. Cultural values in organizations: Insights for Europe. European Journal of International Management, 1(3): 176-190. Schein, V. E. 2001. A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 4: 675-688. Schein, V. E. 2007. Women in management: Reflections and projections. Women in Management Review, 22(1): 6-18. 25 Schwartz, S. H. 1999. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1): 23-47. Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D., & Schyns, B. 2004. Gender stereotypes and the attribution of leadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51(11): 631645. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. 1989. Joan McKay versus joan McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluation? Psychological Bulletin, 105: 409-429. Wood, W., & Karten, S. J. 1986. Sex differences in interaction style as a product of perceived sex differences in competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50: 341-347. 26 Table 1: Sample Size and Mean Score on the Main Variables per Country Region Latin America Confucian West Europe Africa & Middle East South Asia East Europe English Speaking Total Country Brazil Colombia Mexico Peru China Thailand Spain Germany Greece Pakistan Philippines Russia Poland Ireland US Number of Number of Percentage Managers Subordinates of Women 42 126 11.90% 24 72 29% 33 99 18% 29 87 41% 38 114 34% 23 69 70% 40 120 10% 19 57 26% 46 138 43% 47 141 17% 47 141 47% 26 78 12% 52 156 25% 20 60 25% 41 122 34% 527 1580 29.10% 27 49 64 69 42 66 34 42 66 57 50 64 36 64 68 62 Embeddedness (Schwartz) 49 64 69 42 66 34 42 66 57 50 64 36 64 68 62 Collectivism (Hofstede) 38 13 30 16 20 20 51 67 35 14 32 39 60 70 91 Rate of response 69.90% 41.60% 43.90% 49.20% 84.70% 54.50% 84.10% 34.60% 39.10% 74.00% 61.40% 92.00% 74.30% 59.20% 81.60% 55.5 56 40 65% Masculinity Table 2: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among the Study Variables at the Manager Level Variable 1 Leadership Competencies 2 Gender Leader (GL) 3 Collectivism 4 GL*Collectivism 5 Embeddedness 6 GL*Embeddedness 7 Masculinity 8 GL*Masculinity *p<0.1 **p<0.05 ***p<0.01 Mean 3.94 0.29 38.68 0.09 3.75 0.18 54.52 0.00 SD 0.47 0.45 21.84 0.21 0.28 0.31 11.53 0.57 1 1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 0.06 -0.67*** 0.06 0.90 -0.01 0.00 1 0.37*** 0.55*** 0.18*** -0.23*** -0.17*** 1 0.15*** -0.44*** -0.13*** -0.23*** 1 0.28*** -0.08* -0.13*** 1 -0.07 -0.11*** 1 0.57*** 1 28 Table 3: Regression Results for Simple Moderation Variable Gender Leader (GL) Collectivism GL*Collectivism Embeddedness GL*Embeddedness Masculinity GL*Masculinity Δ R² R² F †p<0.1 *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001 Model 1 B t -0.16 -0.30 Model 2 B -0.58* 0.63* -0.51† -0.78* 0.69* 0.02 0.02 16.35*** 0.00 17.25*** 29 t -2.20 2.05 -1.78 -2.12 2.09 FIGURE 1 The moderating role of Embeddedness and Collectivism on the relationship between Leadership Competencies and Leaders gender Leadership Competencies 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 Low Collectivism High Collectivism Men Leaders Women Leaders Leadership Competencies 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 Low Embeddedness High Embeddedness Men Leaders 30 Women Leaders