samples at each of four points in time, from women and men, and from undergraduate business students and part-time MBA students, were weighted equally to prevent larger subsamples from exercising greater influence over the results than smaller subsamples.
The results of this analysis indicated that the proportion of survey respondents who described a good manager as masculine decreased over time from 61% to 50%, a significant decline. The androgynous proportion also significantly decreased from 27% to 19%, the feminine proportion stayed steady at 2–5%, and the undifferentiated proportion significantly increased from 10% to 27%. Thus, although the masculine proportion decreased over time, it remained the largest proportion by far, whereas the feminine proportion remained the smallest by far. Consistent with this trend, the difference between masculinity and femininity good-manager scores favoring masculinity significantly decreased over time.
Koenig and colleagues (2011) also examined differences over time between masculinity and femininity leader scores in studies that followed the think manager – think masculine paradigm inspired by Powell & Butterfield (1979) or the think manager – think male paradigm inspired by Schein (1973, 1975). In studies following each of these paradigms, they found that differences between masculinity and femininity leader scores favoring masculinity significantly decreased over time.
In summary, research results suggest that, although gender stereotypes have tended to be stable, leader stereotypes have become decreasingly masculine over time, although they still emphasize masculine over feminine traits. Next, I consider possible explanations for this trend as well as for the continued overall emphasis on masculinity in leader stereotypes.
Theories
All stereotypes, including gender and leader stereotypes, tend to be durable over time (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). This is because they are reinforced by both cognitive and social processes. Regarding cognitive processes, individuals tend to categorize people into groups and then develop beliefs about the attributes held in common by members of different groups, including their own (Tajfel & Turner, 1986); these beliefs in turn act as self-fulfilling prophecies – instances in which expectations cause behaviors that make the expectations come true (Eden, 2003). Regarding social processes, individuals learn stereotypes of different groups during their early gender socialization experiences from parents, teachers, and other significant adults in their lives as well as from the popular media (Martin & Ruble, 2009; Powell, 2019).
Stereotypes may also change over time (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). Rothbart (1981) distinguished between two theoretical models of stereotype change, the bookkeeping model and the conversion model. According to the bookkeeping model, stereotypes are constantly open to gradual revision as new pieces of information, either confirming or disconfirming, are received. According to the conversion model, stereotypes change suddenly in response to highly salient and critical pieces of disconfirming information. The bookkeeping model is “deliberate, methodical, and predictable” in nature, whereas the conversion model is “somewhat erratic, impulsive, and unpredictable” (Rothbart, 1981, p. 176). If new information about the accuracy of a given stereotype is moderately disconfirming, the bookkeeping model would predict moderate change in it and the conversion model would predict no change. However, if new information overwhelmingly discredits the stereotype, both models would predict substantial change in it.
Thus, there are theoretical reasons for why gender and leader stereotypes may have changed over time. The key determinant of whether a stereotype actually changes according to Rothbart (1981) is whether there has been sufficient disconfirming information to trigger change according to either the bookkeeping or the conversion model.
Chapter 1 described the onset of a period of considerable social change in the 1970s, roughly five decades ago. The changes that have occurred since then in women's educational attainment in preparation for managerial and professional careers and in their workplace status have been pronounced (Powell, 2019; Powell & Butterfield, 2015a). The level of gender segregation of occupations has dropped in most nations since the 1970s, primarily due to the increased employment of women in male-dominated occupations (Powell, 2019; Seron et al., 2016). Overall, the level of societal change that has occurred over the last five decades would seem sufficient enough to promote change in both gender and leader stereotypes according to Rothbart's (1981) bookkeeping and conversion models of stereotype change.
Yet gender stereotypes have exhibited relatively little change (Broverman et al., 1972; Eagly et al., 2020; Haines et al., 2016). How may the general stability in gender stereotypes be explained? Increases in women's educational attainment and workplace status according to indicators such as their labor force participation rate and their proportion of the labor force and managerial positions seem to have mostly stalled or slightly reversed direction during the 21st century so far; most of the changes in women's status over the last five decades actually occurred during the last three decades of the 20th century (Powell, 2019; Powell & Butterfield 2015a). Eagly and colleagues (2020) suggested that this may be because women tend to enter the labor force by assuming existing or newly-created jobs that call for more feminine or communal qualities than other jobs, even within male-dominated occupations. Gender segregation in the workplace may also be resilient due to continued gender segregation within households, with women performing or being responsible for most of the housework in heterosexual households (Breen & Cooke, 2005; Warren, 2011) even when they earn more than their male partners (Lyonette & Crompton, 2015). These factors may have contributed to maintaining gender stereotypes despite the overall increase in women's societal status over the last five decades.
However, given the same set of factors, leader stereotypes have changed somewhat, so that they now place less emphasis on masculinity in the past. What else might be operating that would allow for modest change in leader stereotypes? In recent decades, new theories of effective leadership have emerged that place greater emphasis on feminine traits associated with women than earlier theories based primarily on observations of male leaders (Powell & Butterfield, 2015a; Stogdill, 1974). For example, there has been an explosion of interest since the 1990s in theories of transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), a leadership style that has been more associated with the female than the male gender stereotype (Bass et al., 1996; Kark, 2004). In the same vein, Alimo-Metcalfe (2010) found support for an essentially feminine model of inclusive leadership. Further, best-selling books on management have tended to emphasize traits and behaviors associated more with women than men, thereby contributing to what Fondas (1997, p. 257) called the “feminization” of management. These factors may have been sufficient to promote a gradual change in leader stereotypes de-emphasizing masculinity that is consistent with Rothbart's (1981) bookkeeping model of stereotype change, but insufficient to eliminate the overall emphasis on masculinity in leader stereotypes that would be consistent with the conversion model of stereotype change.
Conclusions
The linkage between gender and leader stereotypes emphasizing masculinity has significant implications, especially for people who aspire to or already hold leadership positions. It places women at a disadvantage compared to men with equivalent credentials and experience, because the perceived incongruity or lack of fit between the leader role and women's gender role fosters their legitimacy as leaders being questioned (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 1983, 2012; Perry et al., 1994). As a result, women are less likely to perceive themselves as good leaders than men do (Powell & Butterfield, 2015a), which may make them less likely than men to develop their managerial skills, pursue careers in the managerial ranks, or pursue careers in the top managerial ranks (Heilman, 2012).
When women assume leader roles, leader stereotypes act as constraints on their behavior. Many organizations exert strong pressure on their members to conform to standards of behavior dictated by those in positions of power and authority. As long as men remain in the majority in top management ranks and increases in women's status in the 21st century remain stalled (Powell, 2019; Powell & Butterfield, 2015a), the masculine leader
