Download GENDER AND LEADERSHIP COMPETENCIES EVALUATION: the

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