MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE STEREOTYPES FINALLY … women... · 2014-09-29 · characteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changed less, remaining strikingly similar

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY2006, 59, 815–846

MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARESTEREOTYPES FINALLY CHANGING?

EMILY E. DUEHR and JOYCE E. BONOUniversity of Minnesota, Twin Cities

As the number of women in management roles increases and organi-zations place a greater emphasis on diversity, a subsequent change inperceptions of women as leader-like is expected. To test this notion,we examined gender and management stereotypes of male and femalemanagers and students. Results reveal considerable change in male man-agers’ views of women over the past 30 years, as evidenced by greatercongruence between their perceptions of women and successful man-agers and stronger endorsement of agentic and task-oriented leadershipcharacteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changedless, remaining strikingly similar to stereotypes held by male managers15 years ago. Across samples, there was general agreement in the char-acteristics of managers but less agreement about the characteristics ofwomen. We also found men somewhat less likely than women to at-tribute successful manager characteristics to women. Respondents withpositive past experiences with female managers tended to rate womenhigher on management characteristics.

In the United States, the number of women in the managerial and pro-fessional ranks has steadily increased. According to Catalyst, a researchand advisory organization committed to advancing women in business,women now hold 51% of managerial and professional specialty positions(Welle, 2004). Women also hold 51% of bachelor’s degrees and 45% ofall advanced degrees (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although these numbers arelarger today than ever before, the progression of women into executivepositions continues to be slow. For example, among the Fortune 500 com-panies, only 16% of corporate officers, 14% of board directors, 5% of topearners, and just over 1% of CEOs are women (Welle, 2004).

Much research has focused on explaining the slow managerial ad-vancement of women (e.g., Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005;Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992), ruling out reasons such as lesser skills, edu-cation, and time out of the workforce. One plausible explanation that hasnot been ruled out is that women face subtle barriers in the corporate climb.In a recent survey of 120 CEOs and 705 female executives drawn from the

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Emily E. Duehr, 75East River Road, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN55455; [email protected].

COPYRIGHT C© 2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.

815

816 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Fortune 1,000 companies (Wellington, Kropf, & Gerkovich, 2003), 72% ofCEOs and 51% of female executives perceived stereotypes about women’sroles and abilities to be an important barrier to their advancement.

Clearly, gender stereotypes are salient in organizations as a potentialbarrier to advancement; however, the degree to which stereotypes persistin the 21st century is unclear. Thirty years have passed since issues ofgender inequality in management and leadership reached the public eye(e.g., Kanter, 1977), and in that time women have become more commonin the boardroom. As the gender balance in management changes, parallelchanges in hiring practices, mentor availability, and eventually gender rolestereotypes should follow (Kanter, 1977).

Over the course of the past several decades, there have also beenchanges on the management front. Contemporary books and articles onmanagement describe management work in “qualities traditionally definedas feminine” (Fondas, 1997, p. 257), such as helping and developing oth-ers, and building networks of relationships. In the academic literature, anew genre of leadership (i.e., charismatic and transformational leadership;Bass, 1985, 1998) has dominated recent research (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).There is also ongoing debate about whether women now hold a leadershipadvantage (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Vecchio, 2002, 2003).

Given the changes in both women’s work roles and models of leader-ship effectiveness, the aim of our research is to assess current perceptionsof men, women, and successful managers. Specifically, the purpose of ourstudy is to assess management and gender stereotypes today, comparingthem with those that existed in the 1970s and 1980s (Brenner, Tomkiewicz,& Schein, 1989; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Schein, 1973,1975).

Gender Stereotypes: Time for Change?

Gender stereotypes are categorical beliefs regarding the traits and be-havioral characteristics ascribed to individuals on the basis of their gender.They serve as expectations about the attributes and behaviors of individualgroup members (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000) and are consid-ered one of the direct antecedents of discrimination at work (Dovidio &Hebl, 2005). Typically, women are stereotyped as more communal andmen as more agentic. Communal characteristics are primarily concernedwith the welfare of other people, including attributes such as compas-sionate, kind, sentimental, helpful, and generous. Agentic characteristicsdescribe a more assertive, dominant, and confident tendency, includingattributes such as aggressive, ambitious, independent, and self-confident.Agentic characteristics have traditionally been aligned with leadershiproles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002).

EMILY E. DUEHR AND JOYCE E. BONO 817

Gender stereotypes have been documented for decades. Although someresearch suggests that stereotypes are not quick to change, even in the wakeof changing social influences (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow,2001), it is clear that the social environment with respect to women hasbeen changing. The past several decades have included changes in thelegal environment (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action) andassociated changes in the extent to which organizations focus on equalopportunity employment practices, both as a function of legal guidelinesand as a movement toward fostering diversity as a business goal (Rynes &Rosen, 1995). Changes in attitudes toward women have also been docu-mented (Twenge, 1997a). These environmental changes suggest two pos-sible reasons why gender stereotypes may be changing, especially forwomen in management. The first possibility is that a gradual change ingender stereotypes may be occurring due to changing social roles (e.g.,more women at work and in management and executive positions). Thesecond possibility is change due to organizational interventions, such asdiversity training aimed at decreasing gender stereotypes and other preju-diced attitudes. Both possibilities are discussed in the next section.

According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), agentic and communalcharacteristics are differentially attributed to men and women because un-equal distribution into occupations and families fosters such expectations(Diekman & Eagly, 2000). As the distribution of men and women intosocial roles shifts, perceptions of the characteristics of men and women(i.e., stereotypes) should also change; however, change cannot be expectedto occur quickly (Lueptow et al., 2001). Recently, Diekman and Eagly(2000) found evidence of changing conceptions of women, reporting thatstereotypes of women have shifted toward more masculine or agentic char-acteristics. In a meta-analysis, Twenge (1997b) reported that women’sself-reported masculinity scores were rising over time and proposed thatthis increase resulted from the changing social climate for women. Con-trary to Twenge (1997b), Lueptow et al.’s (2001) review—which exam-ines gender stereotypes based largely on self-report personality and directcomparisons of men and women—suggested that gender stereotypes haveremained stable over time with a possible increase in the perceived femi-ninity of females. Although neither of these streams of research focuses ongender and management, they do suggest that whether or not stereotypesare changing is an unsettled issue.

A decidedly different reason to expect changing gender stereotypes isdue to the increased focus on diversity in organizations, including spe-cific interventions (e.g., diversity training) designed to foster this goal. Itis now estimated that organizations spend $8 billion annually on diver-sity training, and in a recent survey of Fortune 1,000 companies, 88%reported providing diversity training on gender (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).


Diversity training can be aimed at increasing awareness and appreciationof differences between individuals or decreasing stereotypes held by or-ganizational members. When focused on gender, the aim is typically toidentify stereotypes and promote inclusion, rather than highlighting dif-ferences between men and women (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Researchon schema change shows that once schemas are established, they are veryresistant to change, even in the face of disconfirming evidence (Epitropaki& Martin, 2004; Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000). Epitropaki and Martin(2004) stated that “unless specific interventions and conscious efforts bymanagement for schema change happen in an organization, organizationalmembers’ schemas are likely to remain stable” (p. 295). We suggest thatdiversity training is precisely the type of intervention and conscious effortneeded to promote changes in gender stereotypes.

A recent study by Rudman, Ashmore, and Gary (2001) examined theimpact of diversity education on stereotypes and prejudices, and foundthat training can reduce these biases at multiple levels. Not only did diver-sity education lead to a decrease in directly reported, explicit stereotypes,but such education also reduced implicit stereotypes, which occur on anautomatic, unconscious level (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Implicit stereo-types are thought to be more stable and enduring associations because theyhave been learned through years of environmental influences (Kawakami& Dovidio, 2001). If such associations can be unlearned through diversitytraining, and diversity training is common in today’s work organizations,then it is possible that gender stereotypes may be changing as a resultof direct interventions. If diversity training is a key factor influencingstereotype change, we would expect to see greater change among thoseindividuals with more time and experience in the workplace, due to theirincreased participation in such training.

Research Using the Schein Descriptive Index

A crucial consideration when examining gender stereotypes in workorganizations is the extent to which these stereotypes affect perceptionsof managers. Research within the Schein paradigm focuses on the rela-tionship between gender and management stereotypes, reflecting the ex-tent to which men and women are viewed as leader-like. In 1973, Scheindeveloped the Descriptive Index to assess the extent to which men andwomen were perceived to have the requisite personal characteristics ex-pected for management positions. Using a broad list of adjectives, Scheinfound that the characteristics of successful middle managers were muchmore similar to the characteristics commonly ascribed to men in gen-eral and not at all like the characteristics attributed to women in general.Schein (1975) replicated these results with a sample of female managers,


demonstrating that it was not only males who held gender stereotypes in theworkplace.

In a key extension of the Schein paradigm approximately 15 years afterthe original research, Heilman et al. (1989) examined the extent to whichgender stereotypes persisted in organizations. Heilman et al. (1989) repli-cated Schein’s (1973) original work and found stereotypical views aboutthe characteristics of men in general, women in general, and success-ful managers at a level that closely paralleled Schein’s (1973) findings,suggesting little change in the stereotypes of male managers over time.Heilman also extended Schein’s research by comparing successful man-agers to male and female managers and to successful male and femalemanagers, finding considerably weaker gender stereotypes when more in-formation was provided about the managerial success of women (e.g.,female managers or successful female managers).

Concurrent research with female managers yielded slightly differentresults. Brenner et al. (1989) replicated the original Schein studies usingboth male and female management samples. They found no evidence ofchanging stereotypes among male managers; however, female managersrated both men and women as similar to successful managers. This dispar-ity between male and female respondents was due largely to differencesin their view of women, not in their view of successful managers.

Since 1989, researchers have continued to use the Schein paradigm toidentify gender stereotypes, but nearly all of this research has used studentsamples. Although some researchers have argued that college studentswould be less likely to report gender stereotypes due to a more egalitariansocial context (Lueptow et al., 2001), research using the Schein paradigmhas repeatedly shown that college students hold strong gender stereotypes,especially the male students (Schein & Mueller, 1992). Similar resultshave been reported among students in Germany, Great Britain, Japan,and China (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy,& Liu, 1996). This pattern of findings led Schein (2001) to conclude,“In the United States many people believed that as women moved intomanagement, managerial sex typing would diminish. And it did, amongwomen. But men have continued to see women in ways that are not com-plimentary vis-a-vis succeeding in positions of authority and influence”(p. 684).

This discouraging statement on gender and management stereotypesmay not apply uniformly to all men. Results derived from student sam-ples may not generalize to employees in work organizations, especiallymanagers, who experience both increased exposure to women leadersand direct interventions such as diversity training. Key replications ofthe Schein paradigm with managers took place in the late 1980s, at atime when women were fast increasing their presence in organizations


(Heilman et al., 1989), but since that time the number of women in lead-ership positions has continued to grow (Welle, 2004). Therefore, afteranother 15-year period, the time is ripe to examine whether gender stereo-types held by managers have changed. It is not sufficient to rely solelyon student samples to address this question. Therefore, we included bothmanagers and students in our research to provide a more thorough portraitof current gender and management stereotypes.

Since the first Schein (1973) study of gender and management stereo-types, there have been many advances in the literature with respect to theconceptualization and measurement of stereotypes, and adjective check-lists, such as the Schein Descriptive Index, have been criticized. Devineand Elliot (1995) distinguished between ratings of stereotypes and rat-ings of personal beliefs. According to their distinction, the Schein Indexfocuses on personal beliefs, which may or may not be congruent witheither knowledge or endorsement of stereotypes (see Kunda & Spencer,2003). However, by aggregating the personal beliefs of male and femalemanagers and students, as we do in this research, we can examine thegender and management stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g.,male managers).

Recent stereotype research has also demonstrated differences betweenexplicit and implicit stereotypes (e.g., Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert &Hanges, 2005). Implicit stereotypes are the “introspectively unidentifiedtraces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to membersof a social category” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 15). Additional re-search has focused on the difference between descriptive (i.e., consensualexpectations about what men and women actually do) and prescriptive (i.e.,consensual expectations about what men and women should do) stereo-types (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins,2004). We recognize both the complexity of stereotypes and their mea-surement and the possible role that implicit and prescriptive stereotypesmay play in the advancement of women in management. However, as thepurpose of our study was to compare views of men, women, and man-agers over time, it was necessary for us to use an explicit measure, whichdue to its reliance on adjective descriptors of men, women, and managers,assesses descriptive gender stereotypes.

A second concern raised by Devine and Elliot (1995) was the use of out-dated adjectives, which may provide a limited description of men, women,and managers. Given the changing leadership paradigms over the past30 years, we felt it was crucial to add adjectives reflecting a broader range ofleadership styles. In particular, adjectives describing relationship-orientedand transformational leadership were absent from the original Descrip-tive Index, whereas task-oriented leadership characteristics were well-represented. Task-oriented leadership behaviors emphasize group output;


such as establishing objectives and goals, structuring tasks, and evaluat-ing work quality. In contrast, relationship-oriented behaviors emphasizesupportive personal relationships, a willingness to develop employees anddemonstrations of respect and warmth (Bales, 1954; Bowers & Seashore,1966; House & Aditya, 1997). Although task and relationship-orientedleadership have a long history in the leadership research, recent researchhas focused more on transformational leadership behaviors (Judge & Pic-colo, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers withoptimism and commitment to a compelling vision. They link work goalsto worker values, challenge established practices, and attend to the indi-vidual growth needs of followers (Bass, 1985, 1998). Given that recentmeta-analyses have highlighted the positive effects of both relationship1

(Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) and transformational (Judge & Piccolo,2004) leadership behaviors on employee attitudes and motivation, groupperformance, and leader effectiveness, we added adjectives describingthese behaviors to the index.

Most past research using the Schein Index examined each of the 92 ad-jectives individually. In order to make comparisons over time, we deemedit important to use the original adjectives, but we also combined the adjec-tives to form several scales. In order to assess broad gender stereotypes,agentic and communal scales were formed. In addition, we combined ad-jectives to form scales for task-oriented leadership, relationship-orientedleadership, and transformational leadership to better link this researchto current models of effective leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Judgeet al., 2004).

Individual Differences in Beliefs About Men, Women, and Managers

Although the primary purpose of our research is to examine stereotypesheld by groups of individuals (e.g., male managers, female students), verylittle is known about the characteristics of individuals who predict theirbeliefs about men, women, and managers. Most existing research usingthe Schein Descriptive Index has used either student or managerial sam-ples, preventing direct comparison among these groups. Moreover, whencomparing the stereotypes of managers and students, it is not clear whetherdifferences in stereotypes between these groups are due to the effects ofage, years of work experience, experience with female managers, or hold-ing a managerial role. Therefore, an additional aim of our research is to

1The Judge et al. (2004) meta-analysis uses the label consideration instead ofrelationship-oriented leadership. These categories refer to comparable and concurrent pro-grams of research. The labels have frequently been used interchangeably in research (e.g.,Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Sczesny et al., 2004).


tease apart the source of differences between individuals in their beliefsabout men, women, and managers by examining personal characteristics(i.e., age, gender, education) and organizational experiences (i.e., havinga female supervisor, being satisfied with a female supervisor).

Summary of Research Questions

Given the continued movement of women into management posi-tions and changes in dominant leadership paradigms over the past severaldecades, the time is ripe to examine whether anything has changed withrespect to management and gender stereotypes. To that end, we addressfive specific research questions.

(1) Research Question 1. Have management and gender stereotypesheld by male and female managers changed relative to 15 and 30years ago?

(2) Research Question 2. Have management and gender stereotypes heldby male and female students changed, and how do they compare tothe stereotypes of male and female managers?

(3) Research Question 3. If gender stereotypes have changed, what isdriving that change? Have views of managers changed, have viewsof men and women changed, or have both changed?

(4) Research Question 4. Do the broad gender stereotypic (agentic, com-munal) and leadership-specific (task-oriented, relationship-oriented,transformational) characteristics attributed to men, women, andmanagers differ by sample?

(5) Research Question 5. Do individual differences in education, age,management experience, and experiences with female supervisorspredict beliefs about men, women, and managers?

Method

Participants and Procedures

We used four distinct samples in this research: male managers, femalemanagers, male students, and female students. Managers (n = 620) whoparticipated in this research were drawn from a variety of public and privatesector organizations and came from a variety of job types (e.g., account-ing, human resources, law enforcement, public works, etc.). All managerswere enrolled in voluntary leadership development programs. Data werealso collected from undergraduate students (n = 688) at a large publicuniversity. Students were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses andreceived credit for their participation. They represented a broad array of


TABLE 1Sample Characteristics for This Study

Sample N Sample characteristics Summary statistics

Male managers 333 Age M = 48 years, SD = 8.8Education 81% BA or higher# Direct reports x = 9, SD = 13Race

Caucasian 85.2%African American/Black 3.1%Hispanic 1.7%Asian 1.7%

Female managers 287 Age M = 46 years, SD = 9.2Education 78% BA or higher# Direct reports x = 9, SD = 10Race

Caucasian 88.7%African American/Black 4.0%Hispanic 0%Asian 1.3%

Male students 221 Age M = 21 years, SD = 3.8Managerial experience 25% had been managersRace


Female students 467 Age M = 20 years, SD = 3.6Managerial experience 15% had been managersRace


academic majors, including economics, journalism, business, and psy-chology. Demographic information regarding participants’ age, race, edu-cation, and number of direct reports (for managers) is provided in Table 1.The age of the managers in our samples is comparable to Schein (1973,1975) and Heilman et al. (1989).

Surveys were administered to managers as an optional component ofa survey used in leadership development programs. Surveys were dis-tributed during orientation and completed prior to the start of any formalprogram activity. The research portion of the survey was clearly identifiedas distinct from the leadership assessment, which was for developmentalpurposes only and not provided to the managers’ organization. Therefore,


managers were encouraged to provide honest responses throughout thesurvey as the results would be used for research purposes only. The re-search portion of the survey was confidential and anonymous and wasreturned in postage-paid envelopes to the authors. Among the managerswho completed a leadership development survey, 82% also completed aresearch survey. Surveys were distributed to student samples in severalsmall group sessions. Student surveys were anonymous.

There were seven versions of our survey, each one representing a dif-ferent target condition. The seven conditions were (a) successful middlemanagers, (b) women in general, (c) men in general, (d) women managers,(e) men managers, (f) successful women managers, and (g) successful menmanagers. The first condition (successful middle managers) is the controlcondition and Conditions 2 through 7 are gendered conditions that rangein level of specificity (e.g., from women in general, to women managers,to successful women managers). Participants were randomly assigned toone of seven conditions. All seven surveys included the same list of de-scriptive adjectives and instructions but differed with respect to the targetgroup. For example, some respondents were asked to report the extent towhich each adjective was reflective of “women in general,” whereas oth-ers were asked to report the extent to which each adjective was reflectiveof “successful men managers.” Therefore, each participant responded toonly one target condition. The number of participants responding to eachtarget condition varies by sample and is reported in Table 2.

Measures

Gender stereotypes. A revised version of the Descriptive Index(Schein, 1973), including the original 92 items plus 26 additional newitems (described below), was used to measure gender stereotypes andcharacteristics of successful middle managers. Despite widespread use ofthe Descriptive Index, there is very little information published regardingits psychometric properties. Based on the suggestion of anonymous re-viewers, we collected some post hoc data to address this concern. Amonga student sample (n = 30), we found the 2-week test–retest reliability tobe .90, suggesting relatively stable ratings for a given target condition. Wealso examined whether ratings would differ if the control condition waslabeled “successful manager” rather than “successful middle manager.”Among a student sample (n = 97), we found these ratings to be highlycorrelated (r = .98), indicating similar perceptions of the characteristicsof managers (more generally) and middle managers.

We added 26 new items to the Descriptive Index to address concernsabout outdated adjectives (Devine & Elliot, 1995) and to better repre-sent current styles of leadership. We added 13 new adjectives to describe


TABLE 2Sample Breakdown by Condition of the Descriptive Index

Sample Condition N

Male managers 1. Successful middle managers 572. Women in general 503. Men in general 404. Women managers 395. Men managers 516. Successful women managers 387. Successful men managers 58

Female managers 1. Successful middle managers 362. Women in general 353. Men in general 364. Women managers 355. Men managers 486. Successful women managers 507. Successful men managers 47

Male students 1. Successful middle managers 322. Women in general 283. Men in general 364. Women managers 315. Men managers 336. Successful women managers 367. Successful men managers 25

Female students 1. Successful middle managers 652. Women in general 723. Men in general 704. Women managers 775. Men managers 586. Successful women managers 607. Successful men managers 65

transformational leaders. The new items were based on the most widelyused measure of transformational leadership, the Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Each author separatelyreviewed the MLQ and developed a list of adjectives that were reflectiveof transformational leadership, resulting in 13 items to be added to theinventory (see Appendix A). Additional items were added to reflect man-agement characteristics that are relationship oriented, as such adjectiveswere largely unrepresented among the original 92 items of the Descrip-tive Index. Participants responded to all 118 items using a 5-point ratingscale ranging from 1 not characteristic to 5 characteristic. Survey instruc-tions were modeled after Schein (1975) and asked participants to rate eachadjective according to what they think the target group is like.


TABLE 3Intercorrelations Among Gender and Leadership Scales in This Study

Scale 1 2 3 4 5

1. Agentic .782. Communal .33∗∗ .733. Task .69∗∗ −.06∗ .804. Relationship .03 .68∗∗ .39∗∗ .875. Transformational .16∗∗ .60∗∗ .50∗∗ .89∗∗ .94

Note. Combined sample = 1,363. Scale alphas are presented on the diagonal.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

We also used the original and new Descriptive Index adjectives toform scales. Scales were chosen a priori and a judgmental sort wasundertaken by the authors. This method was preferable to an empiricalsort (i.e., factor analysis) because specific scales were selected based ontheir theoretical relevance to gender and management stereotypes (Eagly,Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly& Karau, 2002). The selection of adjectives to form each scale was guidedby previous research. More specifically, with respect to broad genderstereotypes, we formed agentic and communal scales using adjectivesor direct synonyms described by Eagly and Karau (2002). Furthermore,an effort was made to include agentic and communal adjectives with bothpositive and negative connotations, as in Diekman and Eagly (2000). Thisprocess identified 14 adjectives from Schein’s original 92 to reflect agenticand communal characteristics. With respect to leadership-specific scales,we formed task and relationship-oriented scales based on recent researchby Sczesny (2003) and Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, and Schyns (2004), whoclassified attributes into highly reliable task and person-oriented scales.Whenever possible, we matched exact adjectives or synonyms from theDescriptive Index to form these scales; however, several new adjectiveswere included in the relationship-oriented leadership scale as these itemswere underrepresented among the original items of the Descriptive Index.We used the 13 new transformational leadership items to form a transfor-mational leadership scale.

All gender and leadership scales and associated items are listed in Ap-pendix A. Scale alphas and intercorrelations are presented in Table 3. Therelatively high intercorrelations reported between some scales were notsurprising. Notably, the correlation between the agentic and task-orientedscales (r = .69) is in line with the stereotypic notion of task-orientedleadership as more masculine, and the correlation between the commu-nal and relationship-oriented scales (r = .68) reflects the more feminineassociations with this style of leadership (Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Eagly& Johnson, 1990). A high correlation between relationship-oriented and


transformational leadership was also anticipated, although the associationbetween our transformational and relationship-oriented scales (r = .89) issomewhat higher than previous meta-analytic estimates of this relationship(Miliffe, Piccolo, & Judge, 2005). Given the strong, positive correlationsbetween transformational and relationship-oriented leadership behaviors,Judge et al. (2004) called for research aimed at assessing the extent towhich they represent distinct types of leadership behavior, but to date lit-tle empirical work has fully addressed this issue (see Seltzer & Bass, 1990for an exception). Therefore, consistent with existing leadership literature,we treat relationship-oriented and transformational leadership behaviorsas distinct constructs.

Individual differences. To address our goal of understanding better theindividual differences in characteristics that predict individuals’ beliefsabout men, women, and managers, we asked a limited number of back-ground items at the end of the survey. Participants were asked to reporttheir age, gender, and level of education on a 5-point scale correspondingto: high school, 1 = associate’s degree 2 = BA/BS 3 = MA/MS 4 = orPhD 5 =. Managers were also asked to indicate the number of persons whoreported directly to them. Students were asked if they had ever been a man-ager. A small portion (15%) of the students reported having been a managerfor an average of 1.9 years. Due to the large discrepancy in experience andage between students and the manager sample, we retained students withmanagement experience in the student sample. In addition to these items,we assessed participants’ experiences with female supervisors, via twoquestions: “Have you ever had a female supervisor (yes or no)?” and “Ifyes, on average how positively would you rate the experience (from 1 =poor to 5 = excellent)?” Participants were instructed to provide an averageif they have had multiple female supervisors.

Results

In reviewing our results, it is important to keep in mind that we have foursamples and seven conditions. Thus, in some cases we will be presentingresults of 28 different comparisons for a single research question. Table 2,which describes the four samples and seven conditions in our study, maybe a helpful guide in following our results.

Original Items of the Descriptive Index

To determine the degree of correspondence between ratings of suc-cessful middle managers and men and women, intraclass correlation coef-ficients (ICCs) were used. ICCs were preferable to Pearson’s correlationsfor these analyses because ICCs consider both the relative correspondenceand the absolute agreement between ratings. As in past research, ICCs


were computed from randomized-groups analyses of variance where thegroups, or classes, were the original 92 adjectives. The scores within eachclass were the mean item ratings for each adjective, provided separatelyfor each target condition and sample. ICCs were computed between thecontrol condition (successful middle managers) and each of the genderedconditions, which are treated as independent samples.2 This process wasrepeated separately for each of the four samples used in this study. Theresulting ICCs report the similarity of participants’ ratings of successfulmiddle managers to each of the six gendered conditions. A high correla-tion reflects similar ratings for a particular set of comparison conditions(e.g., successful middle managers and women managers). The size of thecorrelation between any two conditions reflects the degree to which thecomparison group (e.g., women in general or successful male managers)is perceived to have characteristics similar to those of successful mid-dle managers. If the difference in the correlations between two sets ofconditions (e.g., successful managers and men in general as compared tosuccessful managers and women in general) exceeds .29, the difference isstatistically significant (p < .05).3

Male and female managers. In Table 4, we present correlations for oursamples, along with correlations from past research using managementsamples for comparison. The row label indicates which of the genderedconditions is being compared to successful middle managers (i.e., Row1 compares women in general and successful middle managers) and thecolumn label indicates which sample the data is drawn from. Most ofthe correlations were significant, indicating more than a chance level ofsimilarity between the six gendered conditions and successful managers;however, the magnitude of these relationships varies widely by conditionand sample.

The most notable change in results over time is in the comparisonbetween perceptions of successful middle managers and women in general.

2The current use of ICCs as a measure of correspondence is comparable to a two-wayrandom effects model/absolute agreement in reliability analyses where two raters rated92 objects. In our use of the ICCs, the raters are analogous to the control and genderedconditions while the objects are adjectives. We thank an anonymous reviewer for providingthis illustration to aid in understanding our analyses.

3In our analyses using the Descriptive Index, the sample size is the number of adjec-tives (92), not the number of respondents in each condition. Therefore, if the difference inthe correlations between two sets of conditions exceeds .29, the difference between thesecorrelations reaches statistical significance (p < .05). We note that tests of statistical sig-nificance are heavily influenced by sample size, and correlations should only be comparedif variances are equal across samples (Cudeck, 1989). Because we do not have variabilitydata for the Heilman et al. (1989) data and variances in our data vary somewhat by sampleand target condition, the .29 difference marking significance (p < .05) between correlationsshould be used with some caution.


TAB

LE

4In

trac

lass

Cor

rela

tion

Coe

ffici

ents

Acr

oss

Vari

ous

Sam

ples

and

Con

ditio

nsfo

rth

eO

rigi

nal9

2A

djec

tives

ofth

eSc

hein

Des

crip

tive

Inde

x

Sam

ple

Bre

nner

Hei

lman

Bre

nner

Sche

inSc

hein

Sche

inet

al.

etal

.Sc

hein

etal

.et

al.

etal

.(1

973)

(198

9)(1

989)

(197

5)(1

989)

(198

9)(1

989)

Gro

ups

bein

gm

ale

mal

em

ale

Mal

efe

mal

efe

mal

eFe

mal

em

ale

Mal

efe

mal

eFe

mal

eco

mpa

red

man

ager

sm

anag

ers

man

ager

sm

anag

ers

man

ager

sm

anag

ers

man

ager

sst

uden

tsst

uden

tsst

uden

tsst

uden

ts

Wom

enan

dm

anag

ers

.06

−.01

−.24

.63

∗∗.3

0∗.5

2∗.7

0∗∗

.11

.10

.43∗

.35

∗∗

Men

and

man

ager

s.6

2∗.7

2∗.5

4∗∗.6

1∗∗

.54∗

.59∗

.49

∗∗.7

0∗.4

0∗∗

.51∗

.45

∗∗

Wom

enm

anag

ers

and

man

ager

s–

–.5

8∗∗.8

1∗∗

––

.96

∗∗–

.69

∗∗–

.91

∗∗

Men

man

ager

san

dm

anag

ers

––

.86∗∗

.74

∗∗–

–.6

1∗∗

–.6

8∗∗

–.7

8∗∗

Succ

essf

ulw

omen

man

ager

san

dm

anag

ers

––

.93∗∗

.97

∗∗–

–.9

8∗∗

–.9

3∗∗

–.9

8∗∗

Succ

essf

ulm

enm

anag

ers

and

man

ager

s

––

.98∗∗

.97

∗∗–

–.9

5∗∗

–.9

5∗∗

–.9

5∗∗

Not

e.D

ata

from

this

stud

yar

epr

esen

ted

inbo

ld,i

nda

taC

olum

ns4,

7,9,

and

11.

∗ p<

.01.

∗∗p

<.0

01.


Examination of the data in the row labeled “women and managers” revealsa striking change over time in the extent to which male managers seewomen in general as similar to successful managers. For male managers,there was no significant correlation between ratings of successful middlemanagers and women in general in 1973 (ICC = .06, ns) and small negativecorrelations in 1989 (ICCs = −.01 and −.24, both ns). In contrast, therewas a large, positive, and significant correlation found in our data (ICC =.63, p < .01). Results in Table 4 also reveal a change in the extent to whichfemale managers’ perceptions of women in general are similar to theirperceptions of successful middle managers (ICC = .30, p < .01 in 1973,ICC = .52, p < .01 in 1989, and ICC = .70, p < .001 in 2003). Although thechange for female managers was less dramatic than that of male managersand may have begun earlier, change over the 30-year period was steady,sizable, and significant.

A comparison of the correlations between successful middle managersand women in general with the correlations between successful middlemanagers and men in general suggests that the male managers who par-ticipated in our study see men and women as both possessing many of thetraits of successful middle managers (ICC = .63, p < .001 for women ingeneral and ICC = .61, p < .001 for men in general). This finding rep-resents a dramatic change in the perceptions of male managers over thepast 30 years. Results for female manager respondents in our study aresimilar to those of men in that they tend to view both men and womenas possessing many of the traits of successful managers (ICC = .70, p <

.001 between women and managers and ICC = .49, p < .001 for men andmanagers).

Our next step was to compare ratings of successful middle managersto the men and women manager conditions. We found that both maleand female manager respondents described target women managers andtarget men managers as similar to successful middle managers, with thewomen manager condition being rated slightly more similar to success-ful managers than the men manager condition. Both the successful menand women manager target conditions were described as highly similar(ICCs ≥ .95, p < .001) to the successful manager condition.

Results in Table 4, addressing our first research question, suggest thatgender stereotypes have changed compared to 15 and 30 years ago. Maleand female managers now view men and women as similar to successfulmanagers. Change was most dramatic among male managers.

Male and female students. Results in Table 4 also include ICCs be-tween successful managers and the six gendered conditions for our stu-dent samples along with correlations from Schein et al.’s (1989) studentsamples for comparison. In contrast to the changes we found in our man-ager samples, our results suggest that less change has occurred in students’


gender stereotypes since 1989. Specifically, there was no correlation be-tween male students’ views of successful managers and women in general(ICC = .10, ns), similar to findings in 1989 (ICC = .11, ns). Some changewas apparent, however, in male students’ views of successful managersand men in general. Although male students still see successful managersand men in general as similar (ICC = .40, p < .01), this value is sig-nificantly lower than findings in 1989 (ICC = .70, ns). Among femalestudents, almost no change was evident. As in 1989, we found a signifi-cant correlation between female students’ views of successful managersand women in general (ICC = .35, p < .01 and ICC = .43, p < .01,respectively, in our sample and the Schein et al. [1989] sample).

When students responded to the more specific target conditions ofmen and women managers, there were no significant differences betweenmale and female students. There was a slight trend for female studentsto view women managers as more similar to successful managers thanmale students did (ICC = .91, p < .01 and ICC = .69, p < .01 for femaleand male students, respectively); however, this difference did not reachsignificance.

With respect to our second research question, there appear to be smallchanges in the gender stereotypes of male students and no meaningfulchanges among female students in the past 15 years. Specifically, malestudents still exhibit some of the gender stereotypes found in past research(viewing men and managers as more similar than women and managers);however, the strength of the association between men and managers mayhave lessened over time.

Assessing Change

Given the evidence in our data that stereotypes may be changing—especially for male managers—it is important to ask: What has changed?Have managers’ views of men, women, successful managers, or all threechanged in the past 30 years? To answer our third research question, weobtained mean adjective ratings for each of the seven conditions fromHeilman et al. (1989). We then correlated ratings from Heilman et al.’sdata with the data we collected for this study.

Examination of the first column in Table 5 (intraclass correlationsbetween male managers in 1989 and male managers in this sample) re-veals strong (ICC = .91, p < .001) agreement between male managers’perceptions of successful middle managers in 1989 and 2003. Further-more, there is little change in male managers’ views over the 15 yearsrelative to the characteristics of men (ICC = .86 for men in general, .92 formen managers, and .95 for successful men managers). Rather, it appearsthat changes in male managers’ stereotypes over time are concentrated


TABLE 5Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Across Samples for Ratings Within Condition

on the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index

Heilman et al. (1989) male managers correlatedwith current sample of:

Male Female Male FemaleCondition managers managers students students

Successful middlemanagers

.91 .92 .89 .92

Women in general .53 .43 .88 .74Men in general .86 .89 .88 .86Women managers .72 .60 .72 .72Men managers .92 .88 .87 .87Successful women

managers.87 .85 .91 .90

Successful menmanagers

.95 .96 .93 .94

Note. All values are significant at p < .01.

on their views of women. Although there is a significant correlation(ICC = .53, p < .001) between our male managers’ views of womenand the views of male managers in 1989, this correlation is significantlysmaller than the correlations across time for successful managers (ICC =.91) and men in general (ICC = .86). The smallest correlation—betweenmale managers’ views in 1989 and male managers’ views in this study—isin their perceptions of the attributes of women in general (and to a lesserextent their views of women managers), suggesting that the changes wereported in Table 4 are due to changes in the way male managers char-acterize women. Because Column 1 compares the responses of similarsamples of male managers in 1989 and 2004, results can be interpretedas differences between the two time periods in the stereotypes of malemanagers.

Table 5 also presents the correlations between all current samples’characterizations of women and those of 1989 male managers (Row 2).Results reveal that male students’ views of women in general in our sampleare strikingly similar to those of male managers in 1989 (ICC = .88,p < .001), indicating that male students in our sample tended to genderstereotype women in a way that makes them incompatible with the role ofa successful manager. Considered as a whole, results in Table 5 suggestthat views of successful managers (men, women, or gender neutral) areconsistent across time and samples; however, views of women are lessstable.

Next, we compare scores on the gender and leadership scales acrosssamples and conditions, addressing Research Question 4. In Table 6, we


TABLE 6Mean Ratings on Gender and Leadership Scales by Sample and Condition

Heilman et al.(1989) male Male Female Male Female

Condition and scales managers managers managers students students

Successful middle managersAgentic 4.10 3.70a 3.64a 3.60a 3.82a

Communal 2.96 3.39a 3.29a 3.28a 3.23a

Task-oriented 4.18 4.18a 4.16a 3.95a 4.07a

Relationship-oriented – 4.29a 4.12a,b 3.91b 3.92b

Transformational – 4.32a 4.22a,b 4.02a,b 4.03b

Women in generalAgentic 2.58 3.06a 3.14a 2.66b 2.98a

Communal 3.63 3.62a 3.71a 3.71a 3.77a

Task-oriented 2.75 3.38a,b 3.64a 2.89c 3.26b

Relationship-oriented – 3.85a,b 4.04a 3.55b 3.86a

Transformational – 3.69a,b 3.94a 3.45b 3.80a

Men in generalAgentic 3.76 3.74a 3.74a 3.76a 3.81a

Communal 2.76 2.73a 2.70a 2.68a 2.81a


Relationship-oriented – 3.17a 2.91a 3.09a 3.06a

Transformational – 3.35a 3.17a 3.21a 3.31a

Women managersAgentic 3.52 3.51a,b 3.74a 3.28b 3.71a

Communal 2.99 3.46a 3.22a 3.40a 3.43a

Task-oriented 3.54 3.69a,b 4.04c 3.42a 3.84b,c


Transformational – 3.83a,b 4.05a 3.65b 3.94a,b

Men managersAgentic 3.95 3.87a 3.90a 3.90a 3.90a

Communal 2.85 2.77a 2.55a 2.82a 2.63a

Task-oriented 3.84 3.86a,b 3.72a 3.93a,b 4.00b

Relationship-oriented – 3.43a 3.03b 3.23a,b 3.19a,b

Transformational – 3.62a 3.29b 3.46a,b 3.30b

Successful women managersAgentic 4.09 3.88a 3.91a 3.90a 4.01a

Communal 3.01 3.23a 3.32a 3.17a 3.29a



Transformational – 4.12a,b 4.38a 4.10a,b 4.08b

Successful men managersAgentic 4.23 3.98a 3.91a 3.81a 4.08a

Communal 3.09 3.15a,b 2.85c 3.28a 2.97a,b,c


Relationship-oriented – 4.15a 3.81b 4.03a,b 3.71b

Transformational – 4.29a 3.98a,b 4.14a,b 3.86b

Note. ANOVAs were conducted on the present data only. Means in the same row thatdo not share subscripts differ at p < .05 in the Bonferroni post hoc comparison.


present scale means for each of the five scales (agentic, communal, task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational) for each of the sevenconditions. These data are presented for our four samples as well as for theHeilman et al. (1989) male managers; however, because the relationship-oriented and transformational scales were computed from new items, thesescales could not be computed from the Heilman et al. data. In addition,we cannot compute effect sizes (d) or conduct tests of significance forcomparisons involving the Heilman et al. data because we have only meanlevels for target condition and scale. It is highly informative, however,to examine the mean scale ratings across samples for changing trends. Inparticular, change is evident in the scale ratings for the control condition ofsuccessful middle managers. Relative to 1989 male managers, it appearsthat current managers view successful managers as less agentic and morecommunal. This movement toward greater balance in the stereotypicallymale (agentic) and female (communal) characteristics of successful middlemanagers is in line with arguments that modern leadership paradigms aremoving toward the feminine (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2003; Fondas, 1997).Relative to the 1989 male managers, current samples also tend to ratewomen in general higher on agentic characteristics.

A series of ANOVAs revealed the gender and leadership scales onwhich our four samples vary significantly in their mean ratings (seeTable 6). ANOVAs were conducted within each target condition to iden-tify where samples vary in their ratings. When the overall F statistic wassignificant for any scale, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons4 were usedto identify which samples were significantly different. Throughout Table6, means in the same row that do not share subscripts were significantlydifferent (p < .05). These findings are consistent with our earlier con-clusion that male managers’ views appear to be changing, whereas malestudents’ views have not. For example, when examining scale ratings forthe condition of women in general, there are no significant differencesamong male and female managers for any of the five scales. In contrast,male students rated women significantly lower on agentic characteristicsand task-oriented leadership relative to all other samples. As an importantcomparison point, ANOVAs for the condition of men in general revealedno significant differences for any scale ratings. These results provide fur-ther support for the notion that the variation in stereotypes across samplesstems from differing views of women.

Results presented in Table 6 also suggest a same-sex bias amongfemale respondents for the leadership scales. For example, when com-paring the managerial samples, female managers rated women man-agers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership, also rating men

4Bonferroni post hoc comparisons were used to adjust the family-wise error rate to beat or below the value initially set (p < .05) for all comparisons.


managers significantly lower on relationship-oriented and transforma-tional leadership. Similarly, among student samples, female students ratedwomen managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership. Thispattern suggests that female respondents attribute more leadership behav-iors to women relative to male respondents. When comparing mean scaleratings between target conditions, female respondents often rate womenhigher on leadership scales as compared to analogous ratings of men (e.g.,female managers rated women managers higher than men managers ontask-oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational leadership).

In summary, results in Table 6 reveal several instances in which malestudents’ ratings diverge from ratings made by other samples, particularlyfor the condition of women in general. Results also suggest a same-sexbias among female respondents for the leadership scales.

Individual Differences

In our results and in prior research (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge,Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Schein et al., 1989), there has been clear evi-dence that managers and students, and men and women, hold differentgender stereotypes, diverging most in the attributes they assign to women.Therefore, the purpose of our final analysis, addressing Research Ques-tion 5, was to examine the role of individual differences in predicting thebeliefs that our respondents hold about men, women, and managers. Thedependent variable for this analysis is a composite of the top 12 charac-teristics of successful managers. We combined the data across samples inthe successful manager condition to identify the 12 items rated as mostdescriptive of successful middle managers. These items were combinedto form a composite of successful manager characteristics (alpha = .90;see Appendix B).

Zero-order correlations are reported in Table 7. Due to the large sam-ple (N = 1,271), many of the correlations reach statistical significance;however, some correlations are noteworthy, including the relationship be-tween age and education and having a female supervisor (r = −.50,p < .01 for age and r = −.25, p < .01 for education). Our next stepwas to regress the successful manager characteristics composite on thedemographic and experiential variables. Because our earlier results sug-gest that differences between samples were most frequent in the femaleconditions, these conditions were the primary focus of our regressionanalyses. R2 values reported in Table 8 indicate that individual differencesamong respondents explain significant variance in two of the female con-ditions (21% for women in general, 25% for women managers) but notfor the analogous male conditions (3% for men in general, 6% for menmanagers). Across these two female conditions, results indicate that menare generally less likely than women to view women as having successful


TABLE 7Intercorrelations Among Individual Differences Characteristics and

the Successful Manager Composite

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gender –Age .23 –Education .19 .57 –Manager status .23 .75 .55 –Female supervisor −.15 −.50 −.25 −.42 –Satisfaction with female supervisor −.01 .04 .05 .06 −.10 –Successful manager composite −.05 .08 .03 .05 −.06 .10 –

Notes. Correlations greater than .06 are significant at p < .05 and correlations greaterthan .08 are significant at p < .01. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 =female, 2 = male), manager is dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor iscoded (0 = no, 1 = yes).

TABLE 8Regression Analyses Predicting Successful Manager Composite

Target condition

Successful SuccessfulMen in Men men Women in Women womengeneral managers managers general managers managers

BetaGender −.02 .04 .07 −.19∗ −.25∗∗ −.11Age .02 −.02 .17 .14 .24 .13Education −.14 −.19 −.11 −.02 .07 .06Manager status .10 −.10 −.10 −.10 −.02 −.20Female supervisor −.10 −.12 −.02 −.25∗∗ .09 −.06Satisfaction with

female supervisor.00 −.03 .00 .28∗∗ .36∗∗ .12

R2 .03 .06 .02 .21∗∗ .25∗∗ .04

Notes. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 = female, 2 = male), manager isdummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is coded (0 = no, 1 = yes).

∗p ≤ .05. ∗∗p ≤ .01.

manager characteristics. We also found that individuals who were satisfiedwith female supervisors in the past were significantly more likely to viewwomen as having successful manager characteristics. Lastly, it is interest-ing to note that having a female supervisor was significantly and negativelylinked to the successful manager composite only for the women in generalcondition. Once we controlled for the quality of the relationship with thefemale supervisor (and all other individual differences variables), thosewho had a female supervisor were less likely to see women in general ashaving successful manager characteristics.


Discussion

The purpose of our study was to compare gender and managementstereotypes early in the 21st century to those evident 30 years ago. Giventhe influx of women into organizations and management positions as wellas an increased focus on diversity, the time was ripe to reevaluate genderstereotypes. Similar to previous work examining gender stereotypes morebroadly (e.g., Twenge, 1997b), we found changes in the characteristicsattributed to women. Our results complement existing research reportingincreases in the perceived masculinity (Twenge, 1997b) and agency (Diek-man & Eagly, 2000) of women. Furthermore, our results reveal that thesechanges have led managers to rate successful managers and women moresimilarly today than they did 15 and 30 years ago.

Considered as a whole, our results suggest that stereotypes aboutwomen may be changing. Male managers, in particular, seem to be char-acterizing women as less passive and submissive and more confident,ambitious, analytical, and assertive. In short, male managers—the indi-viduals who serve as the gatekeepers to most executive suites—are ratingwomen as more leader-like than they did 15 and 30 years ago. The news isnot wholly positive, however, as male students today hold gender stereo-types that are surprisingly similar to those of male managers 15 years ago.Furthermore, our regression results indicate that, controlling for age, edu-cation, and management status, men generally tended to view women (ingeneral and women managers) as possessing fewer of the characteristicsof successful managers.

At the same time that male managers are rating the sexes more simi-larly with respect to management characteristics, female managers’ gen-der stereotypes have shifted slightly toward a same-sex bias. Our resultssuggest that female managers view women as more similar than men tosuccessful managers. This trend was particularly evident when we exam-ined relationship-oriented and transformational leadership characteristics,which may have a slightly more feminine flavor than traditional commandand control leadership styles of the past. These results are in line with oth-ers who have found a same-sex bias in stereotypes among women (e.g.,Boyce & Herd, 2003; Rudman & Goodwin, 2004).

Whereas our results suggest change in male managers’ views of womenover time, we recognize several possible interpretations of our results. Thefirst explanation is that our findings reflect real change; most notably, malemanagers have actually changed their views of women. If the change isreal, it could be a reflection of changing social roles, the result of directinterventions such as diversity training, or both. Social role theory positsthat the influx of women into the workforce and management positionsreflects a redistribution of social roles, which should subsequently affect


the characteristics typically attributed to women. However, given the dif-ferences we find in male managers’ and students’ stereotypes, social roletheory explanations for the changes we found would apply only if socialroles have changed more drastically in work organizations than in the ed-ucational setting and family life, which represent the majority of collegestudents’ experiences with women. This is plausible because, despite theirincreasing presence in work and leadership roles, women still continue tobe responsible for the bulk of home and child rearing duties (Clevelandet al., 2000). Therefore, the differences we found between young malestudents and middle-aged male managers in their views of women mayreflect their differential experiences with women in social roles. It is alsopossible that when prompted with the condition of “women in general,”male students and managers both envisioned their female peers, leadingmale students to think of young female college students and male managersto think of experienced female managers. Another reason why managers’views of women may be changing faster than students’ views is that theyare more likely than students to have been exposed to diversity trainingfocused on gender, which tends to identify stereotypes and promote in-clusion (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Recent research (Rudman, et al., 2001)demonstrated that such training can influence both explicit and implicitstereotypes.

In contrast to real stereotype change, a quite different interpretationof our results is that male managers have simply learned that they areexpected to view men and women similarly at work. Given the socialclimate in modern organizations that stresses equal employment oppor-tunities and diversity, it is possible that male managers’ responses to oursurvey reflect socially desirable responding. This is a possibility that wecannot rule out; however, all managers in our study were responding to ananonymous survey used only for research purposes. Surveys were neveradministered or viewed by anyone in the managers’ organization but weremailed directly to the researchers. Therefore, we made every attempt toelicit honest responses from participants.

The third plausible explanation of our results is that gender stereotyp-ing has decreased at an explicit level but continues to exist at an implicitlevel, such that participants are genuinely unaware of their gender-basedpreferences and prejudices. As our main purpose was to compare genderand management stereotypes today to those held 15 and 30 years ago,it was crucial we use the same methodology used in past research. Thedownside of this decision is that we were not able to benefit from advancesin stereotype assessment over the past 30 years. Key advances include ratioapproaches to the measurement of stereotypes (e.g., Cota, Reid, & Dion,1991; Martell & DeSmet, 2001; Martin, 1987) and implicit techniquesthat measure latent response times, such as the Implicit Association Test


(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). We have no reason to suspectthat our results would greatly differ with a diagnostic-ratio approach, asthis method asks individuals to make explicit judgments on the character-istics of men and women. Indeed, socially desirable response patterns maybe even more likely when participants are asked to make direct compar-isons (in this approach, all participants rate the probability that males andfemales will have a given attribute) because participants may mitigate theirratings of group differences in an attempt to avoid appearing prejudiced(McCauley & Stitt, 1978). The distinction between explicit and implicitstereotypes has only recently been examined in applied psychology (e.g.,Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). By comparing explicitand implicit stereotypes of male managers, future research may be able toshed light on whether our results reflect real change or socially desirableresponding. There is also a need for more research on the relationshipbetween both explicit and implicit gender stereotypes and selection andpromotion decisions with respect to women in management.

Recognizing that our results may have been affected by socially de-sirable responding, the change in reported stereotypes about women isnoteworthy. It has been hypothesized that even a superficial change instereotypes may affect behavior. Kawakami and Dovidio (2001) arguethat explicit stereotypes, such as those we assessed, may predict blatantand deliberative types of bias, whereas implicit measures may be betterpredictors of subtle or spontaneous expressions of bias. Explicit stereo-types may also predict behavior when socially desirable responses aresalient (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997). Thus,male managers who report more egalitarian beliefs may also behave inways consistent with their espoused beliefs, at least in some situations. Aless optimistic scenario is that male managers’ “politically correct” atti-tudes may be masking unidentified, implicit stereotypes that lead to subtlesexism. Recent research has demonstrated that implicit racial stereotypespredict discriminatory behavior, particularly in conjunction with a climatefor racial bias (Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). This possibility highlights theimportance of future research examining the relationship of explicit andimplicit stereotypes to behavioral indicators of sexism, such as male–female work relations or use of sexist language (see Swim, Mallet, &Stangor, 2004). In considering our results, it is also important to recognizethe multitude of other factors (in addition to implicit and explicit stereo-types) that influence both discrimination against women and women’s ca-reer advancement (e.g., career interruptions, mobility, mentor availability,prescriptive stereotypes dictating how women should be, etc.).

In applying our results to the organizational context, it is importantto recognize some limitations in the type of gender stereotype researchreported here. Vecchio (2002) suggests that the use of imaginary people


as targets may reflect gender stereotyping that occurs primarily in the ab-sence of specific information about an individual. It follows that our data(and past studies using this approach) may tend to over represent genderbiases that actually exist in the hiring and promotion of women. Althoughthe purpose of our research was not to directly address discriminatoryhiring or promotion practices with respect to women, existing researchindicates that hiring discrimination that favors men has persisted (e.g.,Jackson, Esses, & Burris, 2001). Our aim was to determine whether or notstereotypes are changing over time. Whether or not the stereotypes elicitedin a survey like ours influence managers’ promotion and hiring decisionsis an empirical question, and Vecchio (2002) presented a comprehensiveagenda for gender research, which addresses such issues. A related limita-tion of our research is that we did not assess prescriptive stereotypes. Ourmeasure focused on how women are viewed but failed to capture currentviews of how women should be. It is possible that male managers mightcurrently view women as more agentic than in the past, at the same timeretaining beliefs that women should not be agentic. If this is the case,then women who have the characteristics of successful managers may beevaluated more negatively in managerial roles because their behavior vio-lates prescriptive stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman et al.,2004).

Another limitation of our research is that our data do not allow us tospeak to the nature of the change we observed, which could be alpha (ac-tual change in the construct), beta (change due to stretching or shrinkingof the measurement scale), or gamma (participants completely redefinethe construct; Golembiewski, Billingsley, & Yeager, 1976). We interpretour results as alpha change, as we have no reason to suspect that beta orgamma changes are present when comparing the Descriptive Index overtime. Recalibration of the instrument (beta change) does not seem likelyas we find change only in ratings for certain, specific target conditionsand samples (e.g., women in general as rated by male managers). Becausethere is no change in most conditions, it does not seem likely that theinstrument has been broadly recalibrated. The assessment of gammachange is considerably more complicated because there is no a priorifactor structure intended in the Descriptive Index. Furthermore, even withaccess to original data, we would have to compare the factor structure ofthe index within target conditions, which would not be possible due torelatively small samples within target condition. Because we found moreagreement than disagreement in scale-level ratings for each target condi-tion, we posit alpha change as the most likely explanation of our results.

A strength of our research was the consideration of gender stereo-types relative to new leadership paradigms (i.e., transformational lead-ership behaviors). Given our central purpose—comparing stereotypes of


men, women, and successful managers—it is important to reflect currentviews of successful management. A second strength of our study was com-parison of raw data from our samples to data collected by Heilman et al.(1989). By comparing male managers in 1989 and 2004, we are able toexamine change in overall gender and management stereotypes as wellas change in the content of these stereotypes. A third key strength of ourstudy was the examination of individual differences. In past research, itwas not possible to examine why student and manager samples held dif-ferent gender stereotypes. Our individual differences analysis leads to theconclusion that it is not management position, per se, that affects genderstereotypes. Rather, factors such as the respondent’s age, gender, and expe-riences with female supervisors influence stereotypes about women. Theseresults contribute to a deeper understanding of the factors that influencegender stereotypes. We found it interesting that it was not experience withfemale supervision that affected stereotypes, but satisfaction with femalesupervision. Rudman et al. (2001) similarly found that affective variableswere related to decreased prejudice and implicit stereotypes after diver-sity training. Our results highlight the importance of management trainingfor women, aimed at increasing their likelihood of success in managerialpositions.

With respect to the samples used in our research, we note both strengthsand limitations. One strength was the use of multiple samples, includingmanagers in a variety of industries and hierarchical levels and students.We collected data from over 1,300 individuals. Nonetheless, when par-ticipants are split by gender and sample across seven target conditions,the average sample size within condition is not large (mean = 47). Thisraises some concerns over the generalizability of the findings and the pos-sibility that sampling error influenced our results. We note, however, thatthe high correlations we found across time in the ratings of successfulmanagers (both male and female) do lend some confidence to the validityof our results, as sampling error would lead to instability in results acrosstime and samples. A second limitation of our sample is that most of ourparticipants were Caucasian and all were based in the upper Midwest re-gion of the United States. Thus, it is important to replicate our results withgeographically, culturally, and ethnically diverse samples.

Overall, this study makes an important contribution to our knowledgeof management and gender stereotypes in the 21st century. Our resultssuggest that gender stereotypes about women are changing in a way thatsupports their advancement into management and leadership positions.Male managers, who have been and continue to be the gatekeepers intohigher levels of management, rate women and successful managers asmore similar than they did 15 and 30 years ago. Despite these changes,some individual differences in characteristics (e.g., male, young) are linked


to the persistence of gender stereotypes. In addition, our results documentthe emergence of new stereotypes held by women about women. An im-portant contribution of this research is its provision of up-to-date empiricaldata regarding explicit management and gender stereotypes, which can beused to substantiate, repudiate, or understand claims of female advantage,gender inequality, and stereotypes in management and leadership. Our fo-cus on explicit stereotypes also highlights the need for additional researchexamining implicit stereotypes, as well as linking both implicit and ex-plicit stereotypes to discriminatory behavior toward women at work.

REFERENCES

Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI. (1995). MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire: Technicalreport. Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.

Bales RF. (1954). In conference. Harvard Business Review, 32, 44–50.Bass BM. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.Bass BM. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational im-

pact. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Bowers DG, Seashore SE. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with a four-factor

theory of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 238–263.Boyce LA, Herd AM. (2003). The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite

military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles, 49, 365–378.Brenner OC, Tomkiewicz J, Schein VE. (1989). The relationships between sex role stereo-

types and requisite management characteristics revisited. The Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 32, 662–669.

Cann A, Siegfried WD. (1990). Gender stereotypes and dimensions of effective leaderbehavior. Sex Roles, 23, 413–419.

Cleveland JN, Stockdale M, Murphy KR. (2000). Women and men in organizations: Sexand gender issues at work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cleveland JN, Vescio TK, Barnes-Farrell JL. (2005). Gender discrimination in organiza-tions. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp. 149–176).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cota AA, Reid A, Dion KL. (1991). Construct validity of a diagnostic ratio measure ofgender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 25, 225–235.

Cudeck R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models.Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317–327.

Devine PG, Elliot AJ. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogyrevisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139–1150.

Diekman AB, Eagly AH. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of thepast, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 1171–1188.

Dodge KA, Gilroy FD, Fenzel LM. (1995). Requisite management characteristics re-visited: Two decades later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 253–264.

Dovidio J, Kawakami K, Johnson C, Johnson B, Howard A. (1997). On the nature ofprejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-chology, 33, 510–540.

Dovidio JF, Hebl MR. (2005). Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive andaffective factors. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work (pp.11–35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Eagly AH. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly AH, Carli LL. (2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evi-dence. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807–834.

Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML. (2003). Transformational, transac-tional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women andmen. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569–591.

Eagly AH, Johnson BT. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 108, 223–256.

Eagly AH, Karau SJ. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

Epitropaki O, Martin R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor struc-ture, generalizability, and stability over time. The Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 293–310.

Fondas N. (1997). Feminization unveiled: Management qualities in contemporary writings.Academy of Management Review, 22, 257–282.

Golembiewski RT, Billingsley K, Yeager S. (1976). Measuring change persistency in humanaffairs: Types of changes generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied BehavioralSciences, 12, 133–157.

Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, andstereotypes. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 4–27.

Greenwald AG, McGhee D, Schwartz JLK. (1998). Measuring individual differences inimplicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 1464–1480.

Heilman ME, Block CJ, Martell RF, Simon MC. (1989). Has anything changed? Currentcharacterizations of men, women, and managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology,74, 935–942.

Heilman ME, Wallen AS, Fuchs D, Tamkins MM. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions towomen who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. The Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 416–427.

House RJ, Aditya RN. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journalof Management, 23, 409–473.

Jackson LM, Esses VM, Burris CT. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination:The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 27, 48–61.

Jayne M, Dipboye R. (2004). Leveraging diversity to improve business performance: Re-search findings and recommendations for organizations. Human Resource Manage-ment, 43, 409–424.

Judge TA, Piccolo RF. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755–768.

Judge TA, Piccolo RF, Ilies R. (2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of considerationand initiating structure in leadership research. The Journal of Applied Psychology,89, 36–51.

Kanter RM. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Kawakami K, Dovidio JF. (2001). The reliability of implicit stereotyping. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 212–225.Kunda Z, Spencer SJ. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color

judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and appli-cation. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522–544.

Labianca G, Gray B, Brass DJ. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema changeduring empowerment. Organization Science, 11, 235–257.


Lueptow LB, Garovich-Szabo L, Lueptow MB. (2001). Social change and the persistenceof sex typing: 1974–1997. Social Forces, 80, 1–35.

Martell RF, DeSmet AL. (2001). A diagnostic-ratio approach to measuring beliefs about theleadership abilities of male and female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 1223–1231.

Martin CL. (1987). A ratio measure of sex stereotyping. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 52, 489–499.

McCauley C, Stitt DL. (1978). An individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929–940.

Miliffe K, Piccolo RF, Judge TA. (2005, April). Consideration, initiating structure, andtransformational leadership. Poster presentation at the 21st Annual Conference ofthe Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.

Rudman LA, Ashmore RD, Gary ML. (2001). “Unlearning” automatic biases: The mal-leability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 81, 856–868.

Rudman LA, Goodwin SA. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Whydo women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 87, 494–509.

Rynes S, Rosen B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceivedsuccess of diversity training. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 48, 247–270.

Schein VE. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite managementcharacteristics. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95–100.

Schein VE. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite managementcharacteristics among female managers. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 60,340–344.

Schein VE. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in man-agement. The Journal of Social Issues, 57, 675–688.

Schein VE, Mueller R. (1992). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management character-istics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 439–447.

Schein VE, Mueller R, Jacobson C. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereotypesand requisite management characteristics among college students. Sex Roles, 20,103–110.

Schein VE, Mueller R, Lituchy T, Liu J. (1996). Think manager—Think male: A globalphenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 33–41.

Sczesny S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager—think-male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353–363.

Sczesny S, Bosak J, Neff D, Schyns B. (2004). Gender stereotypes and the attribution ofleadership traits: A cross-cultural comparison. Sex Roles, 51, 631–645.

Seltzer J, Bass BM. (1990). Transformational leadership: Beyond initiation and considera-tion. Journal of Management, 16, 693–703.

Stroh LK, Brett JM, Reilly AH. (1992). All the right stuff: A comparison of female and malemanagers’ career progression. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 251–260.

Swim JK, Mallet R, Stangor C. (2004). Understanding subtle sexism: Detection and use ofsexist language. Sex Roles, 51, 117–128.

Twenge JM. (1997a). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995. Psychology of Women Quar-terly, 21, 35–51.

Twenge JM. (1997b). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis.Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.

Vecchio RP. (2002). Leadership and gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 643–671.

Vecchio RP. (2003). In search of gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 835–850.


Welle B. (2004, April). What’s holding women back? Barriers to women’s advancement asperceived by top executives. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Conference of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.

Wellington S, Kropf MB, Gerkovich PR. (2003). What’s holding women back? HarvardBusiness Review, 81, 18–19.

Ziegert JC, Hanges PJ. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes,motivation, and a climate for racial bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,553–562.

APPENDIX AItems in Various Scales

Agentic Characteristics Relationship-Oriented Leadership

Aggressive Compassionate∗

Ambitious Cooperative∗

Analytical Ability Fair∗

Assertive Good listener∗

Dominant Inclusive∗

Forceful IntuitiveSelf-confident Shows appreciation

∗

SociableCommunal Characteristics TactfulAware of the feelings of others UnderstandingCreativeHelpful Transformational Leadership

Kind Attends to the needs of others∗

Passive Considerate∗

Submissive Considers others’ ideas∗

Sympathetic Encouraging∗

Energetic∗

Task-Oriented Leadership Enthusiastic∗

Competent Inspiring∗

Competitive Open-minded∗

Decisive Optimistic∗

Independent Sense of purpose∗

Industrious Sincere∗

Intelligent Supportive∗

Logical Trustworthy∗

ObjectiveSkilled in business mattersSpeedy recovery from emotional disturbances

∗Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.


APPENDIX BItems Rated Most Characteristic of Successful Middle Managers

Attribute Mean rating

Leadership ability 4.61Competent 4.58Knowledgeable

∗4.49

Consistent 4.48Self-confident 4.43Trustworthy

∗4.37

Self-controlled 4.35Well-informed 4.35Intelligent 4.34Fair

∗4.33

Sense of purpose∗

4.33Skilled in business matters 4.33

Note. These items were selected from the total 118 adjectives as those most highlyendorsed in the successful middle manager condition. N = 215 list-wise.

∗Denotes items added to the original Descriptive Index for this study.

Documents

MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE STEREOTYPES FINALLY … women... · 2014-09-29 · characteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changed less, remaining strikingly similar