additional supporting evidence has been found within specific occupations such as the military (“think military leader – think masculine;” Boyce & Herd, 2003) and athletics (“think athletic director – think masculine;” Burton et al., 2009). As summarized in Koenig et al. (2011), these research results offer strong support for what I call the think manager – think masculine paradigm of the linkage between gender and leader stereotypes (they called it the “agency – communion paradigm”).
Schein (1973, 1975) initiated a related stream of research in the 1970s. She compiled a list of characteristics that people commonly believed distinguished between women and men, i.e., served as the basis for gender stereotypes. She then asked a sample of US middle managers to describe how well each of the characteristics fit women in general, men in general, or successful middle managers in general. Schein hypothesized that because the vast majority of managers were men, the managerial job would be regarded as requiring personal attributes thought to be more characteristic of men than women. In support of her hypothesis, she found that both male and female middle managers believed that a successful middle manager possessed personal characteristics that more closely matched beliefs about the characteristics of men in general than those of women in general. In subsequent studies conducted worldwide, both men and women believe that men are more similar to successful managers than women are, but men endorse such beliefs to a greater extent than women do (Schein et al., 1996). As summarized in Koenig et al. (2011), these results support the think manager – think male paradigm of the linkage between gender and leader stereotypes, especially among men.
Thus the linkage between gender and leader stereotypes continues to reflect the closely related notions of think manager – think masculine and think manager – think male. If men are perceived as essentially masculine as a group as gender stereotypes suggest (Ellemers, 2018; Kite et al., 2008), the two paradigms similarly demonstrate the overall masculinity of leader stereotypes (Koenig et al., 2011). At the same time, my initial optimism (and hopefulness) that leader stereotypes would emphasize androgyny rather than masculinity as more women entered the managerial ranks has evolved over time towards pessimism. If androgyny theories originating with Bem (1974) have not helped to explain the linkage between gender and leader stereotypes, we need to turn to other theories.
Theories
Many theories have been offered to explain the emphasis on masculinity in leader stereotypes. According to social-system-centered theories, patriarchal social systems in which the male has power and authority over the female have almost always prevailed throughout recorded history (Alvesson & Due Billing, 2009; Calás et al., 2014; Maier, 1999; Marshall, 1984). Because social systems are essentially gendered in and of themselves (Acker, 1990; Calás & Smircich, 1996; Ridgeway, 1991; Risman, 2004; West & Zimmerman, 1987), gendered processes in societies enacted in organizations dictate the enactment of power and authority, including what behaviors leaders are allowed to exhibit (Broadbridge & Hearn, 2008).
For example, consider the concept of hierarchy, a familiar organizational structure in which every entity (person or work unit) except one is subordinate to a sole other entity. This structure, which represents a situation-centered factor, is consistent with men's greater display of dominance, a masculine trait in gender stereotypes. However, the establishment of hierarchies is reinforced by gendered processes in patriarchal social systems (Acker, 1990). Hierarchies enable employees in higher-level positions, whomever they may be, to dominate employees in lower-level positions. Thus hierarchies may have become the prevalent organizational form because they were designed by men to favor leaders who possess a trait (dominance) associated with men. Alternative organizational forms such as a web structure (in which the manager is a central coordinator more than a controller) or hub structure (in which all employees’ work is interconnected; Mintzberg & Van der Hayden, 1999) place less emphasis on masculine behaviors and have been less acknowledged in leadership theories.
According to role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002), the linkage between widely held gender and leader stereotypes that represent social system factors puts female leaders at a disadvantage by forcing them to deal with the perceived incongruity between the leader role and their gender role. If women display predominantly feminine characteristics, they fail to meet the requirements of the leader role. However, if women display predominantly masculine characteristics, they fail to meet the requirements of the female gender role. In contrast, because the leader role and the male gender role are perceived as congruent, men's legitimacy as leaders is not questioned. Due to the perceived incongruity between the leader role and the female gender role, women are less likely to see themselves as good managers than men do, a research finding reported earlier (Powell & Butterfield, 2015a).
Status characteristics theory (Ridgeway, 1991, 2006), a social-system-centered theory, argues that women's presence in leader positions violates the societal norm of men's higher status and superiority. Because of their weaker status position in society, women are required to monitor others’ reactions to themselves and be responsive to interpersonal cues, leading them to specialize in feminine or communal traits. In contrast, because of their stronger status position in society, men get more opportunities to initiate actions and influence decision-making, leading them to specialize in masculine or agentic traits.
The lack of fit model (Heilman, 1983, 2012) represents a person-centered theory that focuses on decision-makers’ cognitive processes. When decision makers believe that men possess the traits that are best suited for leader roles in greater abundance than women, their judgments and decisions are likely to be biased, leading them to evaluate male candidates as representing a better “fit” for such roles than female candidates regardless of their human capital. As a result, when employers select or promote candidates who fit a gender-based prototype for leader roles (Perry et al., 1994), those candidates who are judged by decision-makers to offer a lesser fit (i.e., women) are less likely to attain the leader positions being filled.
All of these theories argue that the linkage between gender and leader stereotypes exerts a powerful influence on beliefs about who belongs in leader roles (men) and who does not (women). They represent only a sample of the theories that have been offered to explain the linkage. However, they convey a consistent message.
In summary, research results from studies following different paradigms and theories seeking to explain these results have generally concluded that leader stereotypes emphasize masculine traits, or those associated in gender stereotypes more with men than women. The next section of the chapter addresses whether the emphasis on masculinity in leader stereotypes has changed over time, and, if so, why.
Has The Linkage between Gender and Leader Stereotypes Changed over Time?
Research
Gender stereotypes have been generally stable over the past five decades (Broverman et al., 1972; Haines et al., 2016). That is, there has been relatively little change in beliefs about the traits of the typical male (masculine) vis-à-vis the typical female (feminine). According to the most recent results (Eagly et al., 2020), men are seen as just as masculine or agentic as ever, and women are seen as more feminine or communal than ever. This stability in gender stereotypes begs the question, “If gender stereotypes have not changed over time, what about the linkage between gender and leader stereotypes?”
To address this question, I re-analyzed combined data from my four previous studies of descriptions of a good manager described earlier (Powell & Butterfield, 1979, 1989, 2015a; Powell et al., 2002) for the purposes of this book to examine trends over four decades. In the new analysis, I followed Powell and Butterfield's (1979) four-quadrant classification scheme for individuals’ good-manager descriptions based on their masculinity and femininity good-manager scores on the Short BSRI (Bem, 1981): androgynous (high in masculinity and femininity), masculine (high in masculinity and low in femininity), feminine (low in masculinity and high in femininity), or undifferentiated (low in masculinity and femininity).
