Gender, Gender Self-perceptions,and Workplace Leadership

Hans-Joachim Wolfram, Dorothee Alfermann, andUrsula Athenstaedt

ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Key Concepts and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Gender Self-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Stereotyping and Self-stereotyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Key Theories and Debates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Expectation States Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Leadership Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Gender Differences in Leadership Emergence: Self-limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Gender Differences in Leadership Emergence: Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Leadership Behaviors and Leadership Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Gender Differences in Leadership Behaviors and Leadership Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Gender-Typical Undertones of Leadership Behaviors and Leaders’ GenderSelf-perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Emerging Needs for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Emerging Needs for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Cross-References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

H.-J. Wolfram (*)Kingston University, Kingston, Surrey, UKe-mail: H.Wolfram@kingston.ac.uk

D. AlfermannLeipzig University, Leipzig, Germanye-mail: alfermann@uni-leipzig.de

U. AthenstaedtUniversity of Graz, Graz, Austriae-mail: ursula.athenstaedt@uni-graz.at

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020K. F. Zimmermann (ed.), Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and PopulationEconomics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_22-1

1

AbstractFemale leaders display at least equally effective behaviors as male leaders, butfemale leaders are still underrepresented in leadership positions. Furthermore, it ismore difficult for female leaders than for male leaders to achieve positiveleadership outcomes. Role congruity theory suggests that a perceived mismatchbetween feminine gender role and masculine leadership role can create roleconflicts that may hinder women’s progression to leadership positions and maynegatively affect the evaluation of women, who have achieved leadership posi-tions. Research evidence suggests that role congruity theory can help explaingender differences in leadership emergence and leadership outcomes. Further-more, role congruity theory can be meaningfully combined with concepts, such asdouble standards of competence as well as status incongruence. Further researchis needed to determine the relative importance of social roles (i.e., gender role,leadership role) and individual attributes (i.e., categorical gender, gender self-perceptions) for the persistence of gender-inequality in the workplace. From apractical perspective, this implies that both organizational level (e.g., genderbelief systems) and individual level (e.g., career advancement for women) needto be addressed simultaneously.

Introduction

Empirical evidence suggests that women and men display similar leadership behav-iors in the workplace (e.g., Hyde 2014) or that women may show more leadershipbehaviors that are highly valued in organizational settings (e.g., transformationalleadership: Eagly et al. 2003). However, interestingly, women do not benefit fromthese behaviors to the same extent as men in terms of positive outcomes (e.g.,perceived effectiveness: Douglas 2012; direct reports’ satisfaction with supervisor:Druskat 1994; direct reports’ innovative work behavior: Reuvers et al. 2008; directreports’ job satisfaction: Wolfram and Mohr 2010). Furthermore, women are stillunderrepresented in leadership positions, especially with regards to positions of highrank and status (e.g., Lyness and Grotto 2018), although research findings indicatethat a higher proportion of female leaders may be associated with better financialperformance of companies (e.g., Compton et al. 2018), especially in more genderegalitarian cultures (Hoobler et al. 2018).

More than 15 years ago, in an attempt to explain such findings, it was suggestedthat researchers should go beyond the social category of gender and explicitlyaccount for potentially relevant environmental factors and individual factors(Appelbaum et al. 2002). Such contextual factors can be grouped into “gender-invariant role demands” that are associated with leadership positions (Wille et al.2018, p. 222), stereotypical assumptions, and expectations about leaders and aboutthe gender groups (Eagly and Karau 2002), as well as gendered personal attributes offemale and male leaders (e.g., self-ascription of gender-typical traits: Archer et al.2016). Examining environmental and individual factors in addition to the gender

2 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

category may allow researchers to disentangle and determine the relative importanceof these variables in order to gain a better understanding of the underlying mecha-nisms that result in persistent gender inequality in the workplace (e.g., Rhee andSigler 2015). Such knowledge is important because gender stereotyping – andgender self-stereotyping – may harm female leaders’ career progression and organi-zational ability to make the most of the available talent pool (Brescoll 2016, p. 425).

The preparation of this review was driven by social psychological theoryconcerning the concepts of gender and leadership (Appelbaum et al. 2002; Eaglyand Carli 2007), along with key themes identified by researchers in the area ofapplied leadership research (Lord et al. 2017), and accounting for the currentchapter’s specific focus on gender self-perceptions. Accordingly, peer-reviewedjournal articles were chosen, including the broadest reasonable range of scholarshiprelevant to the topic. Official labor statistics were taken into account, where appro-priate, in order to highlight the practical relevance of academic research. Thisapproach resulted in a narrative review attempting to integrate key theoreticalapproaches with relevant empirical evidence, offering readers a comprehensiveoverview of a specific topic area, along with the opportunity to examine researchfurther if desired, through consulting the provided references.

In the following, the concepts of gender self-perceptions (section “Gender Self-perceptions”) and gender stereotyping (section “Stereotyping and Self-stereo-typing”) are discussed, and key theories and debates are reviewed, including socialrole theory (Eagly et al. 2000) and role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau 2002)(section “Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory”), as well as expectationstates theory (e.g., Berger et al. 1998; for an overview of expectation states theory,see Correl and Ridgeway 2003) (section “Expectation States Theory”). Subse-quently, empirical evidence concerning leadership emergence is summarized, withparticular focus on the processes of self-limitation (section “Gender Differences inLeadership Emergence: Self-limitation”) and discrimination (section “Gender Dif-ferences in Leadership Emergence: Discrimination”). Lastly, research about theleadership behaviors and outcomes of women and men are discussed (section“Gender Differences in Leadership Behaviors and Leadership Outcomes”), as wellas gender-typical undertones of leadership behaviors and leaders’ gender self-perceptions (section “Gender-Typical Undertones of Leadership Behaviors andLeaders’ Gender Self-perceptions”), before presenting emerging needs for researchand practice.

Key Concepts and Processes

Why is gender such an issue when it comes to leadership? From a social psycho-logical, and also sociological perspective, the main reason lies in the existence andsignificance of social roles. Social roles are positions within a society that areassociated with expectations concerning behaviors and characteristics of the roleoccupants (Stryker and Statham 1985). These expectations have a normative

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 3

character and deviations are socially sanctioned (Cialdini and Trost 1998). Further-more, these expectations are mirrored in role-related stereotypes.

The concepts of both gender and leadership are based on social roles. Moreover,these roles are intertwined in that expectations towards leaders are similar toexpectations towards men. This was already shown by Schein (1973), who coinedthe “think manager – think male” phenomenon. The feminine gender role is oftenseen as incongruent to the leadership role (see role congruity theory in section“Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory”). In general, this makes men’slives as leaders easier than women’s lives as leaders. For instance, people are moreeasily influenced by men than by women (for an overview, see Carli 2018). Theability to influence others is an essential element of interpersonal power (French andRaven 1959), which, in turn, is an important leadership resource. French and Raven(1959) differentiated between two important aspects of power: expert power andlegitimate power. Women might find it harder to gain expert power, in particular, incomparison to men, because men are stereotypically seen as more competent andskillful (Carli 2018). People evaluate female leaders less positively than maleleaders, especially when these female leaders act in an autocratic manner (Eaglyet al. 1992). Moreover, men gain legitimate power more easily, as they are prone toemerge as leaders of groups (Eagly and Karau 1991). This can be explained bystereotypical expectations towards men that give them the opportunity to act in ahigh status manner (Ridgeway 2001; see expectation states theory in section “Expec-tation States Theory”). Furthermore, and contrarily, stereotypical expectationstowards women may hinder them from showing dominant or assertive behaviors.Women who show agentic behavior are even at risk of being sanctioned for theirdominance and, moreover, experience discrimination in hiring processes for leader-ship positions (Rudman et al. 2012).

Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that for women, it is not easy to get aleadership position. In previous decades, women commonly experienced exclusionfrom leadership positions; the barrier preventing this being termed the “glass ceiling”(Hymowitz and Schellhardt 1986). Recently, however, with increased numbers offemale leaders, the picture appears to have slightly changed. Consequently, Eaglyand Carli (2007) proposed the term “labyrinth” as a more suitable metaphor todescribe the situation of women who aspire leadership positions. Eagly and Carli(2007, p. 6) state: “Paths to the top exist, and some women find them. The successfulroutes can be difficult to discover, however, and therefore we label these circuitouspaths a labyrinth.” Moreover, in recent years, another phenomenon called “glasscliff” has been proposed (Ryan and Haslam 2005). This phenomenon refers toevidence demonstrating that women are more likely than men to be assignedleadership positions that are precarious and that are, therefore, associated with higherlikelihood of poor performance. In this way, female leaders may be held responsiblefor failure, the course for which was set before they stepped in. Men, on the contrary,are more likely to be chosen for positions that are associated with successfulperformance (Bruckmüller et al. 2014).

4 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

Gender Self-perceptions

Gender and especially gender roles are very important for individuals’ self-percep-tions. Individuals incorporate gender stereotypes into their self-concept. Conse-quently, this part of the self-concept is termed gender role self-concept(Athenstaedt 2003). It is important to note that gender stereotypes can be linked tothe core stereotype dimensions communion (warmth) and agency (competence),which have been proposed to be fundamental with regards to group stereotyping(Abele and Wojciszke 2007; Fiske et al. 2002). Agentic and communal traits are partof individuals’ self-concepts, in both men and women, and are seen as independentself-concept facets (Bem 1974). Nevertheless, women tend to see themselves asmore communal than men see themselves, and men tend to see themselves as moreagentic than women see themselves. The gender difference in agency has becomesmaller over time, due to women having become more agentic (Twenge 1997, 2001).In general, agency has been linked to leadership qualities, because individuals withhigher agency tend to have higher self-esteem and also more career success (Abele2003).

The leader stereotype and the masculine gender stereotype are intertwined, whichmay be an obstacle for women to become leaders. Consequently, both societalpressure and women’s self-perceptions may be a hindrance to female career pro-gression. Women may doubt that they are sufficiently agentic to become leaders(Eagly and Carli 2007). Moreover, having achieved a leadership position, womenmight have to face a double bind, because they have proven to be agentic enough tobecome leaders, but they might question their communality. This is important,because agentic women might be perceived as hostile and, as a result, be disliked(Eagly and Karau 2002). In order to meet both expectations, female leaders have tomeet the challenge to be both agentic as well as communal. Some female leadersnowadays can be seen as an example of this. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor,likes to present herself as “the mother of the nation,” and, at the same time, is seen asa very competent leader. Being both warm and competent resembles an androgynouspersonality as proposed by Bem (1974). This personality is generally advantageous,because androgynous individuals can adapt to a range of social situations. In general,it seems that the requirement for leaders to be mainly agentic has declined in the lastdecade. On the contrary, research evidence concerning leadership effectivenesssuggests that a combination of communal and agentic traits is needed to be a goodleader (Gartzia and van Engen 2012; Hoyt 2010). Moreover, agency is not the onlypredictor of leadership aspiration. For instance, Fritz and van Knippenberg (2017)found that for individuals who identify more with their organization, which womenare more likely to do than men, communion is positively associated with leadershipaspiration.

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 5

Stereotyping and Self-stereotyping

Stereotyping occurs when individuals are socially categorized. Social categorizationis a prerequisite for the activation of stereotypes. Gender is a highly visible andsalient social category that is nearly omnipresent in life. This means that individualsare classified into one of two gender categories, male or female, in most situations.As a result of this categorization process, members of both gender groups areattributed gender-typical traits and behaviors. The reason is that categorization is acognitive process that typically leads to an overemphasis of differences betweengroups, whereas within groups, similarities are seen as predominant. In consequenceof this, gender stereotypes represent socially shared knowledge about traits, behav-iors, social attitudes, and roles, which differ between men and women. This genderbelief system (Deaux et al. 1985) has not only a descriptive, cognitive component,but also a prescriptive, normative component concerning rules and expectationsabout gender adequate (and inadequate) behaviors and roles. If an individual doesnot meet these expectations, he or she may experience rejection, punishment, andsocial constraints.

Gender stereotypes help to regulate behaviors in the workplace and in everydaylife and may thus make human life more predictable. However, gender stereotypesmay also result in discrimination of one gender group or the other. This is particu-larly true if decisions, such as job hiring or educational recommendations, are basednot only on competence and motivation of an applicant, but also on gender stereo-types. In this context, gender stereotypes may serve as probability estimates forexpected traits and behaviors. For example, if a job applicant is a mother of threechildren, an employer may expect her to be more often absent due to her familyduties than when the applicant was a father of three children. On the other hand, if amale employee applies for parental leave, this may lead to a more negative reactionof the employer, because parental leave of men is counter-stereotypical.

Gender stereotypes can be described using two dimensions: warmth and compe-tence. As was discussed in section “Gender Self-perceptions,” women are expectedto show warmth, have communal traits and to be relationship-oriented, whereas menare expected to be competent, agentic, and assertive. Gender stereotypes are learntfrom childhood and can be very influential in a person’s life and development. Mostpeople are motivated to fulfill these stereotypical expectations, to varying degrees,and it is therefore not surprising that they not only guide the behaviors, preferences,and social attitudes of women and men, but also influence their self-concept.Accordingly, women use more communal traits than men in their self-descriptions,but less agentic traits than men (see also section “Gender Self-perceptions”). Forexample, in a representative sample of 2428 adults in Germany, men scored signif-icantly, but only slightly, higher than women on agency, and significantly, butmoderately, lower than women on communion (Goldschmidt et al. 2014).

Plenty of research has focused on the possible impact of gender self-perceptions(i.e., gender role self-concept) on behaviors, and vice versa. The origins of thisresearch can be traced back to the androgyny concept, which postulated that thecombination of masculine (agentic) as well as feminine (communal) aspects of the

6 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

self would contribute to a more positive, healthy, and successful individual devel-opment (Abele 2003; Bem 1993). Notwithstanding that suggestion, gender self-perceptions have been shown to play a part in career development, with agencycontributing to a successful career more strongly than communion (Abele and Spurk2011). This corroborates the assumption that role-congruent traits that are integratedinto one’s self-concept (e.g., career relevant traits) may facilitate the adoption ofsocial roles (e.g., job roles).

Key Theories and Debates

The abovementioned processes point to the importance of gender roles and, conse-quently, the application of gender stereotypes to women and men, when they applyfor leadership positions, and after obtaining such positions. In the following, theoriesthat explain how social roles may affect the evaluation of men and women as well astheir self-perceptions and behaviors are reviewed.

Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory

It has been suggested that the main reason for gender issues concerning workplaceleadership lies in societal definitions of gender roles. Eagly (1987) and later Eaglyand Wood (2012) introduced (bio) social role theory in order to explain similaritiesand dissimilarities in the behaviors of men and women. They used social role ascentral, integrating concept. Individuals hold role expectations in their memory anduse them for self-description as well as for the evaluation of others. These expecta-tions are socially shared. Williams and Best (1990) investigated gender stereotypesin 27 countries and found cross-cultural consistency in gender stereotyping, withcorrelations between countries ranging from 0.35 (Pakistan and Venezuela) to 0.94(Australia and England). This shows that a characteristic that is seen as typical formen or women in a country is evaluated similarly in other countries. Furthermore,the authors found no reversed stereotyping (i.e., there were no traits that were seen asstereotypical for women in one country, but stereotypical for men in anothercountry).

Gender stereotypes mirror role expectations. For instance, women are expected tobe communal, relationship-oriented, and warm. Men are expected to be agentic,assertive, and competent. Eagly (1987) proposed that gender roles are determined bytasks that are traditionally assigned to men and women in society. Traditionally,women are responsible for childcare and household chores, and men are expected totake care for their families by protecting them and providing them with resources.Men and women behave in accordance with their gender role, not only because theyfeel societal pressure, but also because they develop gendered skills. These processescan be considered as self-fulfilling prophecies. Society’s gender stereotypical expec-tations are met by women and men displaying gendered behaviors. However, thereason lies not within the nature of men and women, but in society. In this sense,

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 7

gender roles are an important aspect of socialization (Eckes and Trautner 2000).From childhood, gender stereotypes are acquired and used as guidelines for behav-ior. Moreover, psychological biases, such as correspondence bias (i.e., a tendency toinfer stable personality traits from observed behavior, and to neglect situationalfactors: Gilbert and Malone 1995), or system justification tendencies (i.e., a tendencyto defend, bolster, and justify aspects of existing social, economic, and politicalarrangements: Jost and van der Toorn 2012), add to these processes and, over time,contribute to gender stereotypes’ self-perpetuation. Furthermore, in compliance withgendered expectations, men and women hold different roles within society. Womenare still more responsible for housework and childcare, whereas men are stillengaging more in job related activities. Moreover, the distribution of men andwomen into occupations is skewed with some occupations typically held bywomen (e.g., nurse) and others typically held by men (e.g., engineer). Occupationalstereotypes mirror gender stereotypes, as employees in female-dominated occupa-tions, both men and women, are expected to have communal qualities, whereasemployees in male-dominated occupations are expected to have agentic qualities(Bosak et al. 2011).

Eagly and Wood (2012) proposed that the origins of gender roles lie in physicaldifferences between men and women. Given women’s gestational ability and men’sgreater physical strength, many societies assigned tasks based on these physicalspecifics. Additionally, societies allocated higher status and power to men. Althoughmodern Western societies have reduced the strict gender-division of tasks, power,status, and resources, some gender hierarchy and task division are still existent.However, social role theory suggests potential levers for social change. As genderrole expectations are driven by tasks and occupations that men and women predom-inantly fulfill, the theory implies that gender stereotypes might change, if thedistribution of men and women into social roles changed. Partly, this can alreadybe observed as in recent decades, women have entered many male-dominated areas.One consequence is that women see job-related attributes, such as freedom, chal-lenge, leadership, prestige, and power, as increasingly important (Konrad et al.2000). As mentioned above, women nowadays also use more agentic traits forself-description (Twenge 1997, 2001). So there seems to be some societal change,and Diekman and Eagly (2000) demonstrated that women and men are believed tobecome more similar in the future. For this to happen, however, it would beimportant that considerably more men enter female-dominated areas – a transitionthat is not yet observed.

Eagly and Karau (2002) extended social role theory in order to cover theimplications of gender roles for occupational roles. More specifically, the authorsemphasize the significance of congruity, and incongruity, of roles. They presentedrole congruity theory, which provides a general framework for understandingwomen’s, often vulnerable, status as leaders, depending on the leadership rolesthat they hold. The authors proposed that the incongruity between the femininegender role and the leadership role leads to two types of prejudice. The first prejudicerefers to women being perceived as less capable than men to be leaders. Thisprejudice diminishes the chances of women to become leaders and presents itself,

8 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

for example, when people are asked whether they would prefer a male or female“boss” (Eagly and Carli 2007). The Gallup’s annual Work and Education surveyasked US-American respondents every year since 1953, whether they would preferto work for a male or female boss (Carrol 2006). At the beginning, 66% ofrespondents indicated that they would prefer a male boss, whereas 5% reportedthat they would prefer a female boss. The preference for a male boss has dropped toaround 33% after 2000, and the percentage of respondents who did not show apreference for their boss’ gender rose from 25% to almost 50%. This could mean thatthe prevalence of prejudice against female leaders is decreasing. Especially the mostrecent data from 2017 gives hope, because only 23% preferred a male boss, 55% didnot indicate a gender preference, and 21% preferred a female boss. However, thesuspicion remains that survey responses might be influenced by ongoing discussionsconcerning men’s and women’s leadership abilities. Given the increasing number ofcompanies trying to prevent disadvantage for women, it could be that people answerin a socially desirable way. Thus, the question emerges, what is people’s “default”way of thinking? Sczesny and Kühnen’s (2004) study perhaps points to a potentialanswer. The authors asked participants to evaluate the leadership competence ofmale and female targets. Interestingly, participants attributed more leadership com-petence to women than to men. However, when the researchers kept participantsmentally occupied and, thus, limited their cognitive capacity, the results werereversed and more leadership competence was attributed to men than to women.The authors concluded that prejudice against female leaders is still the default mode.

The second prejudice that was proposed by Eagly and Karau (2002) concernsnegative evaluations of women who are in leadership positions already and displaythe corresponding behavior (e.g., dominance). This prejudice appears to be lessvisible nowadays (Eagly 2007), because female leaders have been shown to useeffective leadership styles, even more than men, and to be successful. Rossette andTost (2010) presented evidence that successful female top leaders were evaluated asmore agentic, more communal, and more effective than successful male top leaders.The authors explain this with reference to double standards for competence (Foschi2000), which may bring an advantage for female top leaders. Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Eagly et al. (1992) found only small bias against female leaders overall(d = 0.05). However, there was negative bias in male-dominated areas (d = 0.09),and for female leaders using an autocratic leadership style (d = 0.30). In anotherstudy, male direct reports, but not female direct reports, were found to have prejudiceagainst female leaders (Ayman et al. 2009). Moreover, prejudice can perhaps beobserved in the context of the glass cliff phenomenon (Ryan and Haslam 2005),when female leaders are evaluated less positively, because they are blamed forfailure, a failure that was actually caused by their, probably male, predecessors.Taken together, the overall picture concerning prejudice against female leaders isinconclusive, although recent evidence suggests some positive change.

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 9

Expectation States Theory

Another theory that can explain the relevance of gender with view to leadership isexpectation states theory (Berger et al. 1972, 1980). This theory does not explaingender differences explicitly, but deals with status differences and hierarchies withingroups. The theory postulates that group members develop expectations concerningexpected inputs for task completion. These expectations define status beliefs. Mem-bers who are expected to be more competent, to have better ideas, and to take overgroup leadership, attain higher status compared to other group members. In expec-tation states theory, gender is only one out of range of individual characteristicsdetermining status beliefs. More precisely, the theory differentiates specific anddiffuse status characteristics. Specific status characteristics are skills or abilitiesthat are relevant to attain a goal. Diffuse status characteristics are stereotypicallyassociated with group membership, such as gender, age, education, ethnic back-ground, or occupation. Diffuse status characteristics are particularly relevant whengroup members have limited knowledge about specific status characteristics.

Status beliefs are shared cultural schemas about groups’ status positions in society(Ridgeway 2001). These beliefs refer to all group characteristics that might beimportant for organizing social relations, and they include intergroup appraisalsand legitimizations of group inequalities within society. Status beliefs come intoplay when members of different groups need to cooperate with each other. This is ofcourse true for the gender groups as they are highly interdependent (Rudman andGlick 2008). Status beliefs are intertwined with gender stereotypes, because the latterascribe greater status, worthiness, and competence to men (Ridgeway 2001). Thesebeliefs are consensual as people who are advantaged as well as people who aredisadvantaged by status beliefs tend to accept the given hierarchy (Ridgeway andBourg 2004). However, members of dominant groups endorse status beliefs morestrongly than members of subordinate groups.

Status characteristics become relevant in group settings, when members differ inthese characteristics, or when tasks are associated with these characteristics. Withregards to gender, such situations are gender-mixed group settings, and situationsthat require to work on gendered tasks (e.g., solving technical issues as a stereotyp-ically masculine task). In such situations, men and women are confronted withimplicit performance expectations, which may shape men’s and women’s willing-ness to speak up and to assert themselves. As a consequence, men (i.e., high statusmembers) receive more attention, and are more likely to fulfill performance expec-tations. Moreover, as high status members, men can more easily influence others,and it is more likely that they emerge as leaders. Status beliefs may create demandsfor legitimation concerning women (i.e., low status members), who show leadershipbehaviors. These reactions impose negative sanctions on women for violating theexpected status order and might reduce their ability to accomplish tasks. Theseassumptions of expectation states theory are clearly in line with role congruitytheory (Eagly and Karau 2002) (see section “Social Role Theory and Role CongruityTheory”).

10 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

Leadership Emergence

Official labor statistics consistently show gender differences in leadership emergence(e.g., Eurostat 2018). These differences typically favor men over women and aremore pronounced at higher levels of the organizational hierarchy, but varydepending on the sector of industry under consideration, cultural context, andgenerational cohort. In general, there is an increase of women in leadership positionsover the last decades, which can be linked both to women’s increasing qualification,and to a growing concern for gender equality (European Commission 2016). Quotasystems for women (e.g., concerning supervisory boards in Norway and Germany)have led to a higher proportion of women at board level. Furthermore, legal effortssince 2004 to increase women’s participation in political decision-making have ledto higher proportions of women in parliaments and governments (currently 28.6%and 27.6%, respectively). The proportion of women in leadership positions differsconsiderably between countries. In the European Union, for example, 34% ofmanagerial positions are held by women, whereas 66% are held by men (Eurostat2018). None of the 28 member states of the European Union see gender parity inmanagerial positions, but the proportion of female managers among all managersranges from 46% in Latvia to 19% in Luxembourg.

The difference between women and men in leadership positions becomes greaterwith increasing seniority. The proportion of women among executive board mem-bers of the “largest listed companies” (European Commission 2016, p. 26) reached22.7% in 2015, but only 6.5% of board chairs and 4.3% of CEOs were women. Thisindicates a dramatic underrepresentation of women, and an overrepresentation ofmen, in highly ranked leadership positions. Again, the proportion of women in suchleadership positions differs considerably between countries. In the European Union,for example, the highest proportion of female board members was found in France(35.6%), and the lowest proportions were found in Greece, Cyprus, Estonia, andMalta (less than 10%).

Gender differences in leadership emergence do not only vary by country andhierarchical level, but also by industry sector. With regards to top positions inGermany, for example, women hold 8% of these in the financial sector (Holst andWrohlich 2018) and in the largest listed shareholder companies (Holst and Friedrich2017), whereas 10% of hospital directors are female (for a summary, see Reimannand Alfermann 2018), and 20% of full professors are female (StatistischesBundesamt 2018, p. 36).

According to Abele (2006), there is a “scissors effect,” which describes a relativedecrease of women, and an increase of men, from lower to higher ranks throughoutthe career paths of academics and professionals, including managers, physicians, andprofessors. This effect is a continuing and global phenomenon, which can also befound in highly developed countries, such as the USA, Canada, European countries,and Japan.

Having illustrated gender differences in leadership emergence, potential reasonsunderlying gender disparity in leadership positions are discussed in the followingtwo sections. Relevant influential factors can roughly be grouped into internal and

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 11

external causes. Internal causes concern self-limiting (or enhancing) attitudes andbehaviors of women and men, including motivation, volition, self-esteem, andassertiveness. External causes, on the other hand, primarily refer to discriminatorybehaviors shown by the environment.

Gender Differences in Leadership Emergence: Self-limitation

More women than men tend to avoid high career goals, or at least to hesitate when itcomes to making career-supportive decisions. For example, in a longitudinal studyover 8 years with alumni from Swiss medical schools (Buddeberg-Fischer et al.2010), male physicians were more interested than female physicians in careerprogression. Only 2.5–3.5% of female respondents were planning a career as ahospital/academic department director, compared to 9.3–13% of male respondents.This self-limitation on the part of female physicians is aligned with gender stereo-types and may, therefore, be a result of these (see section “Stereotyping and Self-stereotyping”).

Stereotypically, women are assumed (and expected) to have high emotional andsocial skills, but relatively low competence and dominance. Therefore, women areoften seen as lacking the skills that are needed for successful leadership. Contrarily,men are favored, because they are stereotypically regarded as competent and as“natural” leaders. Such gender-differential ascriptions have also been found instories about female and male CEOs written by business students (Katila andEriksson 2013). Acker (2006) describes gender inequality in leadership positionsas the result of an inequality regime, where male white leaders are regarded as thenorm, and female and/or ethnic minority leaders are seen as the exception. Consid-ering social stereotypes about women and men, Heilman (2012) comes to a similarconclusion from a social psychology perspective. The “think manager – think male”phenomenon can be explained by omnipresent stereotypical expectations, whichfavor men and, at the same time, downgrade women for leadership positions. Aswomen are primarily expected to show social skills, and men leadership skills, theseexpectations result in different attributions to male and female managers: Men areseen as “natural” leaders, whereas women need to prove competence, and when theyhave proven competence and are successful, they may be denied social and emo-tional skills (backlash effect: Heilman 2012; Katila and Eriksson 2013). Similarly,Badura et al. (2018) suggest that (stereotypically masculine) agentic traits are themost important internal facilitator of leadership emergence, whereas (stereotypicallyfeminine) communal traits are a hindrance to leadership emergence.

Women at the start of their career may realize this potential conflict and maytherefore refrain from running for leadership positions in order to avoid socialpunishment. Men, on the other hand, may feel more suited for leadership positions,because gender stereotypes encourage them and because they are more likely toreceive positive feedback about their competence. Empirical evidence supports theseconsiderations. Using experiments, Bian et al. (2018a) found that women were lessconfident about success because they self-attributed intellectual competence to a

12 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

lesser extent than men. This effect of stereotypes on self-evaluations, underminingthe interest in activities that were allegedly for “smart” children, has been found ingirls as young as 6 years (Bian et al. 2017, 2018b). Magua et al. (2017) demonstratedthat not only self-attributions, but also peer evaluations may be influenced by thisgender bias. In peer reviews of applications for scientific positions, female applicantswere praised less for their intellectual brilliance and competence than male appli-cants, which resulted in a lower number of recommendations for female applicantsthan for male applicants.

Another example of self-limitation, although combined with discrimination, is thegender pay gap. The “unadjusted gap” was 14.2% in European countries in 2014(Boll and Lagemann 2018). The gap can then be split into an “explained” part (4.8%)and an “unexplained” part (9.4%). The explained part includes all variables that havebeen shown to contribute to the gap, such as industry sector, number of workinghours, occupation, and educational attainment. The un-explained part is the differ-ence between unadjusted gap and explained gap. Wage differences between male-dominated and female-dominated sectors of industry as well as differences in thenumber of working hours contribute highly to the explained part of the pay gap. Theremaining unexplained part of 9.4%, however, shows that the gender pay gap cannotbe explained away completely.

The latter may be due to women’s self-limitation, but also to discriminatorybehaviors by evaluators and employers. With regards to the pay gap, women aresaid to be more reluctant and modest than men in wage bargaining. Researchfindings, so far, are equivocal indicating the potential relevance of additional vari-ables that may moderate gender differences in bargaining. Such potentially relevantmoderator variables include the framing of the situation (opportunity for negotiation[powerful] vs. opportunity for asking [polite]: Small et al. 2007) and the bargainingsituation’s ambiguity (Leibbrandt and List 2015). Another important factor contrib-uting to the gender pay gap is that women more often than men decide to work part-time, and/or take time out, to accommodate caring responsibilities, which, in turn,may result in lower income.

Having reviewed self-limitation as an internal factor that may explain genderdifferences, the following section reviews literature with a focus on external factors(i.e., discrimination).

Gender Differences in Leadership Emergence: Discrimination

Gender discriminationmay result in gender inequality, but is now shown less openly – atleast in societies that explicitly commit to gender equality as an important goal.However, discrimination may well display itself in a more subtle way, especially inperformance evaluations (e.g., Magua et al. 2017), and also in hiring practices and wagecriteria. For example, Koch et al. (2015) confirmed a gender bias in hiring practices,with men being preferred over women in male-dominated jobs, but men being equallyvalued as women in female-dominated or gender-integrated jobs. Accordingly, there is agender role congruity bias favoring men, but not women. In their meta-analysis,

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 13

Williams and Tiedens (2016) reported a backlash effect for women demonstratingdominance explicitly (e.g., through direct demands), compared to implicit signals ofdominance (e.g., eye contact). Such explicit dominance behaviors, which contradictstereotypical expectations for women, resulted in lower likeability, and even lowerhireability for women than men. Furthermore, Inesi and Cable (2015) found that maleevaluators may feel threatened, if female applicants earn similar wages as the maleevaluators themselves.

Wages in female-dominated sectors of industry (e.g., education, healthcare,service) are often lower than wages in male-dominated sectors of industry (e.g.,automotive, information technology, trade), despite the fact that on average men arenot better educated and skilled than women. The size of these wage differencesvaries by country (Boll and Lagemann 2018). In addition, in male-dominatedoccupational fields (e.g., business strategy), employees working long hours arepaid disproportionally more, which contributes to the gender pay gap, because notonly do women receive lower wages on average, but they cannot compensate thisdisadvantage through working more hours (Zucco 2019).

These external factors may well contribute to lower participation rates of womenin leadership positions. Some authors, however, suggest that an important reason, ifnot the main reason, is the preponderance of childcare and other family-relatedduties for women (cf. Ceci et al. 2009; Gatrell 2008). Relatedly, Carli and Eagly(2016), summarizing the main obstacles that women face when pursuing a profes-sional career, emphasize not only gender-stereotypical expectations, discriminationin pay and promotion, and the lack of suitable support networks, but women’sdomestic duties. All these obstacles are described as a “labyrinth” (see section“Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory”). Carli and Eagly (2016, p. 520)suggest: “The rarity of female leaders is not merely due to a lack of interest bywomen or to women’s inability to lead effectively [. . .]. Rather, women face amultitude of challenges not faced by men.” In order to overcome these challenges,it is not sufficient to educate, coach, and support women, but it is imperative for theirpersonal social environment and the companies they work for to adapt to and copewith these challenges. In a longitudinal qualitative study with female physicians andtheir partners, Reimann and Alfermann (2018) found discriminative and genderingpractices in hospitals, but, in some cases, supportive and de-gendering practices,which contributed to successful careers for women. In particular, spouses’ instru-mental and emotional support, but also active encouragement through senior con-sultants and gender-friendly organizational climate, was shown to be of upmostimportance for women’s career development.

The question emerges as to how organizations can create a gender-friendlyclimate and increase the proportion of female leaders. In a data set on CEOtransitions in Fortune 500 companies over 20 years, Cook and Glass (2014) foundthat higher gender diversity among decision boards (23% female members) wasassociated with more promotions of women to CEO than low board gender diversity(13% female members). Holton and Dent (2016, p. 557) summarize their findings onfemale managers: “The key in our view to systemic change is for more organisationsto take a decisive, agentic role in creating a better organisational culture for women;

14 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

a place where women are able to fulfil their potential and contribute to businesssuccess.” Apart from mentoring of high potentials, this should also include anemphasis on work-life balance and family support (Fritz and van Knippenberg2017), on diversity management (Cook and Glass 2014), and on de-genderingwork climates (Acker 2006; Reimann and Alfermann 2018).

Leadership Behaviors and Leadership Outcomes

Gender Differences in Leadership Behaviors and LeadershipOutcomes

The leadership behaviors and leadership outcomes of women and men have been atopic of considerable debate among researchers and practitioners for many years(e.g., Appelbaum et al. 2002). According to Lord et al. (2017, p. 443), apart fromleadership emergence and bias in the evaluation of leaders, leadership styles andleadership effectiveness are “key gender topics” in the area of applied leadershipresearch.

Research evidence suggests that gender differences in leadership behaviors areeither small (Hyde 2014), or they point to a potential “female leadership advantage”(Eagly and Carli 2003), in that women seem to display more of the behaviors that areparticularly valued in organizational settings (Eagly et al. 2003). Early studiesconsidered potential gender differences in interpersonal orientation and task orien-tation as well as in participative (democratic) and directive (autocratic) leadershipbehaviors. Evidence from field studies, as opposed to assessment studies andlaboratory experiments, did not suggests that female leaders display more interper-sonal orientation and less task orientation than male leaders (Eagly and Johnson1990). However, female leaders were shown to behave more democratically thanmale leaders, whereas male leaders tended more than female leaders to adopt anautocratic leadership style (Eagly and Johnson 1990, p. 247). This latter differencewas not large, but was found irrespective of study setting (i.e., field vs. assessmentvs. laboratory), indicating that context variables may be relevant, depending on theleadership behavior under consideration.

More recently, researchers have turned their attention to potential gender differ-ences in transformational leadership (e.g., Bass et al. 1996). Transformationalleadership is centered around three behavioral dimensions: individualized consider-ation, charisma/inspiration, and intellectual stimulation (e.g., Avolio et al. 1999;Bass 1990). A study using samples across various industry sectors and direct reports’ratings showed that female leaders were seen as displaying slightly more individu-alized consideration and charisma/inspiration than male leaders (Bass et al. 1996). Inanother study, however, using a sample of international bank employees, there wereno differences between female and male leaders in transformational behaviors basedon direct reports’ ratings, but in self-ratings, female leaders reported higher use ofindividualized consideration than male leaders (Carless 1998).

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 15

In an attempt to integrate the inconclusive research evidence available, and toexamine the potential effects of moderator variables, Eagly et al. (2003) conducted ameta-analysis of the leadership behaviors displayed by women and men. Femaleleaders were found to show more individualized consideration, more charisma/inspiration, and more intellectual stimulation than male leaders, and women alsoscored higher than men on the contingent reward behaviors of transactional leader-ship. Although these differences were small, what is remarkable is that “all of theaspects of leadership style on which women exceeded men relate positively toleaders’ effectiveness” (Eagly et al. 2003, p. 569). In terms of contextual moderatorvariables, the above gender differences were more pronounced in educational,healthcare, and national sports settings than in business and mixed settings, regard-less of whether data included leaders’ self-ratings or direct reports’ ratings.

Summarizing the available research evidence, Hyde (2014, p. 387) stated thatgender differences in reward-based leadership approaches are “slight,” whereasdifferences in transformational leadership are “trivial.” Trinidad and Normore(2005, p. 574), however, came to the conclusion that transformational leadership is“the preferred leadership style used by women,” as it relates to values acquiredduring gender role socialization. Taking meta-analytic evidence into account, andadmitting that gender differences are small (Eagly et al. 2003), it seems reasonable tosuggest that female leaders are, at least, not less transformational than male leaders,“and may, in fact, be more so” (Bass et al. 1996, p. 5).

With regards to leadership outcomes, meta-analytic evidence suggests that thereare no gender differences in perceived leadership effectiveness overall (for a concisereview, see Hyde 2014), but that differences between women and men may existdepending on rating source and context (Paustian-Underdahl et al. 2014). Morespecifically, when using self-ratings, male leaders rated themselves as more effectivethan female leaders in lower supervisor and senior leader positions, irrespective ofthe organizational context (Paustian-Underdahl et al. 2014, p. 1138). Contrarily,when using other ratings, female leaders were rated as more effective than maleleaders, especially in education and business settings, and in middle management aswell as senior management positions. Paustian-Underdahl et al. (2014) suggest thatthis finding may be explained by higher perceived congruity between women’sgender role and leadership roles in education, business, and middle management(Eagly and Karau 2002) and by ascribed extra competence to women in seniormanagement positions (Foschi 2000) (see section “Social Role Theory and RoleCongruity Theory”). These findings partly confirm earlier meta-analytic evidenceconcerning the effectiveness of female and male leaders (Eagly et al. 1995) and pointto the interesting possibility that the concept of role congruity (and incongruity) maybe meaningfully applied to both gender groups, and “impact perceptions of men’s aswell as women’s leadership effectiveness” (Paustian-Underdahl et al. 2014, p. 1139).More specifically, Eagly et al. (1995) reported that female leaders were seen as moreeffective than male leaders when leadership roles were defined in less masculineterms, whereas male leaders were seen as more effective than female leaders whenleadership roles were defined in more masculine terms. These findings were notaffected by the source of effectiveness ratings (i.e., self-rating vs. other rating).

16 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

Paustian-Underdahl et al.’s (2014, p. 1139) findings show that male leaders mayindeed receive less favorable effectiveness ratings than female leaders (e.g., inmiddle management positions in educational organizations), possibly due to orga-nizations’ “shift toward a more feminine and transformational outlook.”

Given that female leaders may perhaps display more transformational behaviorsthan male leaders (Eagly et al. 2003), and that transformational leadership hasconsistently been shown to be associated with positive outcomes (Judge and Piccolo2004), it is interesting that women do not benefit from transformational behaviors tothe same extent as men (e.g., Douglas 2012). It has been suggested that femaleleaders need to demonstrate stereotypically masculine behaviors in addition tofeminine behaviors (see section “Social Role Theory and Role Congruity Theory”),because, otherwise, they would be perceived as “just doing what women do”(Fletcher 2004). In demonstrating masculinity and femininity, female leaders maysucceed in showing leadership competence as well as fulfilling their gender role(Eagly and Carli 2007). Male leaders, on the other hand, are overtly commended forshowing feminine behaviors (Reuvers et al. 2008) – a phenomenon that has morerecently been labeled as “communality-bonus effect” (Hentschel et al. 2018).

In combination, the research evidence discussed above points to the potentialrelevance of a match, not only between gender-stereotypical leadership behaviorsand categorical gender, but between these behaviors and leaders’ gendered personalattributes (e.g., Appelbaum et al. 2002). In the following section, therefore, literatureabout the gender-typical undertones of leadership behaviors and leaders’ gender self-perceptions is reviewed, before presenting emerging needs for academic researchand organizational practice.

Gender-Typical Undertones of Leadership Behaviors and Leaders’Gender Self-perceptions

There has been much debate about gender-typical undertones of leadership behav-iors (e.g., Pounder and Coleman 2002), and whether congruity between leaders’gender and their behaviors may affect leadership outcomes (e.g., Eagly and Karau2002). Some researchers have suggested that transformational leadership can beconsidered as an androgynous style (e.g., Manning 2002) in that it comprisesbehaviors with feminine undertones (i.e., individualized consideration: Hackmanet al. 1992) and behaviors that are, arguably, more masculine (i.e., charisma/inspi-ration: Bass and Riggio 2006), along with behaviors that could perhaps be seen asrelatively gender neutral (i.e., intellectual stimulation). Other researchers, however,described transformational leadership as less masculine than traditional styles ofmanaging (i.e., less aggressive and less assertive: House and Howell 1992; Ross andOffermann 1997). Lastly, it has been suggested that transformational leadership mayhave feminine undertones (i.e., communal: Yoder 2001). Accordingly, someresearchers described transformational behaviors as more congenial to the femininegender role (feminine leadership: Carless 1998; van Engen et al. 2001), stating thatfeminine attributes may underlie the transformational approach (Pounder and

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 17

Coleman 2002), or even suggesting that transformational behaviors “relate to femalevalues” (Trinidad and Normore 2005, p. 574).

There is empirical evidence suggesting that some transformational behaviors mayindeed be perceived as more stereotypically feminine than masculine. Whereasmeta-analytic findings suggest that stereotypes about leaders in general are stillmasculine (Koenig et al. 2011), Vinkenburg et al. (2011) reported that female leadersare assumed to show more individualized consideration, more intellectual stimula-tion, and marginally less charisma/inspiration than male leaders. Furthermore, meta-analytic evidence (Bono and Judge 2004) indicates that observer ratings of transfor-mational behaviors are positively associated with leaders’ self-ratings of extraver-sion (e.g., optimistic, active), as well as agreeableness (e.g., kind, cooperative), butnegatively with self-reported emotional instability (e.g., angry, anxious). This canperhaps be considered as additional, but indirect, evidence for gendered undertonesof transformational behaviors, because research has demonstrated that women andmen differ with regards to extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional instability.

According to Schmitt et al.’s (2008) meta-analysis, women score higher than menon these broad personality traits. Research examining the sublevels of these domains(Weisberg et al. 2011) also suggested that women may score higher than men on bothaspects of agreeableness (i.e., compassion and politeness) as well as on both aspectsof emotional instability (i.e., volatility and withdrawal). With regards to extraver-sion, however, gender differences diverged, in that women scored higher than menon enthusiasm, but lower than men on assertiveness (Weisberg et al. 2011, p. 10).

In combination, the evidence presented above points to the possibility that theconcept of congruity (and incongruity) could perhaps be applied to the perceivedmatch (or mismatch) between gendered undertones of leadership behaviors (e.g.,Pounder and Coleman 2002) and both stereotypes about female and male leaders(e.g., Vinkenburg et al. 2011), and also leaders’ self-perceptions (e.g., Bono andJudge 2004). According to the matching principle of moderator research in appliedpsychology (Cohen andWills 1985; De Jonge and Dormann 2006), effects should bestronger when the independent variable and potential moderator variable are similarto each other (e.g., gendered leadership behaviors and leaders’ gender self-perceptions) than when both variables are less similar (e.g., general leadershipbehaviors and leaders’ broad self-perceptions). This would mean that leaders’ self-ascriptions of pronouncedly gendered traits (i.e., gender self-perceptions/gender roleself-concept) might be more relevant than leaders’ self-ascriptions of general per-sonality traits, when examining the effectiveness of gendered leadership behaviors.Research evidence exists that self-ascribed femininity is strongly associated withagreeableness, whereas self-ascribed masculinity is associated with extraversion(Marusic and Bratko 1998), and especially with extraversion’s assertiveness com-ponent (Weisberg et al. 2011).

In line with the above considerations, research has shown that low self-ascriptionsof femininity and masculinity can negatively impact effectiveness ratings in femaleteam managers, especially when using charisma/inspiration (i.e., incongruity withfeminine gender role and leadership behavior’s gender-typical undertone), whereashigh ascriptions of femininity and masculinity can have positive effects for male

18 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

team managers, especially when using intellectual stimulation, but also charisma/inspiration (i.e., congruity with leadership behavior’s gender-typical undertones andwith masculine gender role: Wolfram and Gratton 2014). Similar relevance ofcongruity (and incongruity), but at higher levels of the organizational hierarchy,may be indicated by research findings concerning female and male executives.Research has shown that female and male executives score similarly high onextraversion and similarly low on emotional instability (Wille et al. 2018), as wellas comparatively low on emotional expressiveness – although male executivesreport higher emotional expressiveness than female executives (Callahan et al.2005). These findings may indicate that adaptation to “gender invariant” rolerequirements could be increasingly important, for women and men, in higherleadership positions (i.e., lower femininity, thereby accommodating the generalleader stereotype: Koenig et al. 2011; displaying an “archetypical ‘leader personal-ity’”: Wille et al. 2018, p. 228). Kroska and Cason (2019, p. 17) highlight that thegender role deviance required from female executives may create difficulties forcareer progression and retention, mediated through the attribution of negativeattributes, such as ruthlessness and abusiveness (cf. Eagly et al. 1992; Ferguson2018; Rhee and Sigler 2015) (see section “Social Role Theory and Role CongruityTheory”).

Further promising gendered personal attributes that may be relevant to theeffectiveness of female and male leaders may include, but are not limited to,leadership self-efficacy (e.g., concerning intercultural empathy (feminine) as wellas business savvy (masculine): Javidan et al. 2016), emotional intelligence (femi-nine), especially social skills (Petrides and Furnham 2000), and expression ofemotions conveying dominance (masculine), especially pride (Brescoll 2016;Brosi et al. 2016).

Summary

Emerging Needs for Research

With view to emerging needs for research in the area of gender differences inleadership emergence, this review points to the importance of studies exploringgender belief systems (Deaux et al. 1985) that lead to gender inequality in theworkplace. Complementarily, research should evaluate which organizational inter-ventions are likely to increase gender equality in the workplace, focusing, forexample, on effective career development for women as well as reconcilability ofwork demands and demands outside work (e.g., Carli and Eagly 2016), and theconditions under which such interventions are likely to have positive effects. Suchresearch should account for both internal as well as external factors that maycontribute to gender differences in leadership emergence (see sections “GenderDifferences in Leadership Emergence: Self-limitation” and “Gender Differences inLeadership Emergence: Discrimination,” respectively).

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 19

Furthermore, longitudinal studies are promising, especially of a qualitativenature, to better understand women’s and men’s career development after tran-sitioning to parenthood, as well as including variables beyond workers’ gender,such as age and/or generational cohort (e.g., Ely et al. 2014), and ethnic background.Examining differential effects of organizational interventions for women, men, andorganizations appears to be a promising field for future research as well.

With regards to leadership behaviors and outcomes, this review of researchevidence allows the following conclusions: Role congruity theory (Eagly andKarau 2002) is still valid and relevant and can be meaningfully combined withother theoretical models (Paustian-Underdahl et al. 2014), such as the doublestandards of competence model (Foschi 2000) – and possibly assumptions about(high status) token leaders (Kanter 1977). Furthermore, it appears promising toexamine the concept of role congruity with a view to status incongruence (e.g.,Triana et al. 2017). For example, recent research findings indicate that relativelyyoung leaders may be perceived as less effective than older leaders, especially whenusing charisma/inspiration (Molodykh 2019). This finding is aligned with expecta-tion states theory (see section “Expectation States Theory”) and points to theinteresting option to account for multiple demographic variables in leadershipresearch, including these variables’ combinations (e.g., Archer et al. 2016).

Examining effects of leaders’ gendered attributes seems to offer a promisingavenue for future research as well, especially when trying to explain why transfor-mational leadership works better, in terms of outcomes, for male leaders than forfemale leaders (see section “Gender-Typical Undertones of Leadership Behaviorsand Leaders’ Gender Self-perceptions”). Such research is, again, linked to rolecongruity theory (Eagly and Karau 2002), but additionally takes into accountstereotypes about female and male leaders (Vinkenburg et al. 2011) as well as femaleand male leaders’ gender self-perceptions (e.g., Bono and Judge 2004).

Emerging Needs for Practice

Based on the review concerning gender differences in the emergence of leaders,organizational interventions should not only address the individual level (e.g.,mentoring of high potentials), but, importantly, such interventions need to addressthe assumption that “ideal workers” are male and masculine (see section “Stereo-typing and Self-stereotyping”). Accordingly, it is essential that attempts to improvethe gender gap in leadership include the organizational level (Lyness and Grotto2018), aiming at implementing organizational practices and structures that are moregender-friendly.

With regards to leadership behaviors and outcomes, the review of researchevidence suggests that organizations should value effective leadership behaviors(Brescoll 2016), irrespective of these behaviors’ gender-typical undertones, and theirseeming match (or mismatch) with leaders’ categorical gender. Organizations shouldalso put more of an emphasis on gender self-perceptions than on stereotypes aboutthe gender groups, as a match between behavior and self-perception might enhance

20 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

effectiveness (see section “Gender-Typical Undertones of Leadership Behaviors andLeaders’ Gender Self-perceptions”).

Organizations may also wish to consider positive contributions of genderedleadership behaviors, and especially stereotypically feminine behaviors, morewidely, thereby “improving and refining the business case” (Hoobler et al. 2018,p. 2474). This would mean a move from an over-emphasis on financial performancetowards equally relevant, but possibly less tangible, outcomes for individual well-being and organizational functioning (e.g., organizational culture, climate, andinclusivity).

Cross-References

▶Gender and Inequality in the Workplace▶Gender Stereotypes and Gender-Typed Work▶Masculinity, Femininity, and Workplace Outcomes

References

Abele AE (2003) The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: findings froma prospective study. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:768–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.768

Abele AE (2006) Karriereverläufe und Berufserfolg bei Medizinerinnen [Career development andcareer success of female physicians]. In: Dettmer S, Kaczmarczyk G, Bühren A (eds)Karriereplanung für Ärztinnen. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 35–57

Abele AE, Spurk D (2011) The dual impact of gender and the influence of timing of parenthood onmen’s and women’s career development: longitudinal findings. Int J Behav Dev 35:225–232.https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411398181

Abele AE, Wojciszke B (2007) Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus others.J Pers Soc Psychol 93:751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.751

Acker J (2006) Inequality regimes: gender, class, and race in organizations. Gend Soc 20:441–464.https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499

Appelbaum SH, Audet L, Miller JC (2002) Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? Ajourney through the landscape of theories. Leadersh Organ Dev J 24:43–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730310457320

Archer T, Arntén AC, Olsen K, Jansson B (2016) Age and gender influence upon self-reportedleadership attributes during recruitment. Clin Exp Psychol 2:140. https://doi.org/10.4172/2471-2701.1000140

Athenstaedt U (2003) On the content and structure of the gender role self-concept: includinggender-stereotypical behaviors in addition to traits. Psychol Women Q 27:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00111

Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI (1999) Re-examining the components of transformational andtransactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. J Occup Organ Psychol72:441–462

Ayman R, Korabik K, Morris S (2009) Is transformational leadership always perceived as effective?Male subordinates’ devaluation of female transformational leaders1. J Appl Soc Psychol39:852–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00463.x

Badura KL, Grijalva E, Newman DA et al (2018) Gender and leadership emergence: a meta-analysis and explanatory model. Pers Psychol 71:335–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12266

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 21

Bass BM (1990) From transactional to transformational leadership: learning to share the vision.Organ Dyn 18:19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(90)90061-S

Bass BM, Riggio RE (2006) Transformational leadership, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, MahwahBass BM, Avolio BJ, Atwater L (1996) The transformational and transactional leadership of men

and women. Appl Psychol 45:5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1996.tb00847.xBem SL (1974) The measurement of psychological androgyny. J Consult Clin Psychol 42:155–162.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215Bem SL (1993) The lenses of gender. Yale University Press, New HavenBerger J, Cohen BP, Zelditch M (1972) Status characteristics and social interaction. Am Sociol Rev

37:241–255. https://doi.org/10.2307/2093465Berger J, Rosenholtz SJ, Zelditch M (1980) Status organizing processes. Annu Rev Sociol

6:479–508. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.002403Berger J, Ridgeway CL, Fisek MH, Norman RZ (1998) The legitimation and delegitimation of

power and prestige orders. Am Sociol Rev 63:379–405. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657555Bian L, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A (2017) Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and

influence children’s interests. Science 355(6323):389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524

Bian L, Leslie S-J, Murphy MC, Cimpian A (2018a) Messages about brilliance undermine women’sinterest in educational and professional opportunities. J Exp Soc Psychol 76:404–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.006

Bian L, Leslie S-J, Cimpian A (2018b) Evidence of bias against girls and women in contexts thatemphasize intellectual ability. Am Psychol 73:1139–1153. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000427

Boll C, Lagemann A (2018) Gender pay gap in EU countries, based on SES (2014). PublicationsOffice of the European Union, Luxemb. https://doi.org/10.2838/978935

Bono JE, Judge TA (2004) Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 89:901–910. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.901

Bosak J, Sczesny S, Eagly AH (2011) The impact of social roles on trait judgments: a criticalreexamination. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38:429–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427308

Brescoll VL (2016) Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biasedevaluations of female leaders. Leadersh Q 27:415–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005

Brosi P, Spörrle M, Welpe IM, Heilman ME (2016) Expressing pride: effects on perceived agency,communality, and stereotype-based gender disparities. J Appl Psychol 101:1319–1328. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000122

Bruckmüller S, RyanMK, Rink F, Haslam SA (2014) Beyond the glass ceiling: the glass cliff and itslessons for organizational policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev 8:202–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12006

Buddeberg-Fischer B, Stamm M, Klaghofer R (2010) Career paths in physicians’ postgraduatetraining – an eight-year follow-up study. Swiss MedWkly 140:w13056. https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2010.13056

Callahan JL, Hasler MG, Tolson H (2005) Perceptions of emotion expressiveness: gender differ-ences among senior executives. Leadersh Organ Dev J 26:512–528. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510624566

Carless SA (1998) Gender differences in transformational leadership: an examination of superior,leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles 39:887–902. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018880706172

Carli LL (2018) Women, power, and the career labyrinth. In: Travis CB, White JW (eds) APAHandbook of the psychology of women, vol. 2. American Psychological Association, Wash-ington, D.C., pp 349–265

Carli LL, Eagly AH (2016) Women face a labyrinth: an examination of metaphors for womenleaders. Gend Manag An Int J 31:514–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-02-2015-0007

22 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

Carrol J (2006) Americans prefer male boss to a female boss. In: Gallup news service. Available viahttps://news.gallup.com/poll/24346/americans-prefer-male-boss-female-boss.aspx. Accessed15 May 2019

Ceci SJ, Williams WM, Barnett SM (2009) Women’s underrepresentation in science: socioculturaland biological considerations. Psychol Bull 135:218–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014412

Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Social influence: social norms, conformity, and compliance. In:Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds) Handbook of social psychology, 4th ed., vol. 2. Boston:McGraw-Hill, pp 151–192

Cohen S, Wills TA (1985) Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull98:310–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310

Compton YL, Kang S-H, Zhu Z (2018) Gender stereotyping by location, female director appoint-ments and financial performance. J Bus Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3942-y

Cook A, Glass C (2014) Women and top leadership positions: towards an institutional analysis.Gend Work Organ 21:91–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12018

Correll SJ, Ridgeway CL, Delamater J (2003) Handbook of social psychology. Kluwer, New York,pp 29–51

Deaux K, Winton W, Crowley M, Lewis LL (1985) Level of categorization and content of genderstereotypes. Soc Cogn 3:145–167. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1985.3.2.145

Diekman AB, Eagly AH (2000) Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: women and men of the past,present, and future. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 26:1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001

Douglas C (2012) The moderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the leadershipbehavior–leader effectiveness relationships. Leadersh Q 23:163–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.013

Druskat VU (1994) Gender and leadership style: transformational and transactional leadership inthe Roman Catholic Church. Leadersh Q 5:99–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90023-x

Eagly AH (1987) Sex differences in social behavior: a social-role interpretation. Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Hillsdale

Eagly AH (2007) Female leadership advantage and disadvantage: resolving the contradictions.Psychol Women Q 31:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00326.x

Eagly AH, Carli LL (2003) The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence.Leadersh Q 14:807–834. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004

Eagly AH, Carli LL (2007) Through the labyrinth: the truth about how women become leaders.Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

Eagly AH, Johnson BT (1990) Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull108:233–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233

Eagly AH, Karau SJ (1991) Gender and the emergence of leaders: a meta-analysis. J Pers SocPsychol 60:685–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.685

Eagly AH, Karau SJ (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev109:573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

Eagly AH, Wood W (2012) Social role theory. A biosocial analysis of sex differences andsimilarities. In: Van Lange PA, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of theories insocial psychology, vol 2. Sage, London, pp 458–476

Eagly AH, Makhijani MG, Klonsky BG (1992) Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 111:3–22

Eagly AH, Karau SJ, Makhijani MG (1995) Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 117(1):125–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.125

Eagly AH, Wood W, Diekman AB (2000) Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: acurrent appraisal. Dev Soc Psychol Gend 12:123–174

Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC, van Engen ML (2003) Transformational, transactional, andlaissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychol Bull129:569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 23

Eckes T, Trautner HM (eds) (2000) The developmental social psychology of gender. LawrenceErlbaum, Mahwah

Ely RJ, Stone P, Ammerman C (2014) Rethink what you “know” about high-achieving women.Harv Bus Rev 92(12):100–109

European Commission (2016) Report on equality between women and men 2015. SWD (2016) 54.Available via https://www.oecd.org/gender/data/genderwagegap.htm

Eurostat (2018) The life of women and men in Europe.A statistical portrait. 2018 edition. Availablevia https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/womenmen/index.html?lang=en. Accessed22 Apr 2019

Ferguson TW (2018) Female leadership and role congruity within the clergy: communal leadersexperience no gender differences yet agentic women continue to suffer backlash. Sex Roles78:409–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-017-0803-6

Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P, Xu J (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J PersSoc Psychol 82:878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

Fletcher JK (2004) The paradox of postheroic leadership: an essay on gender, power, and transfor-mational change. Leadersh Q 15:647–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.07.004

Foschi M (2000) Double standards for competence: theory and research. Annu Rev Sociol26:21–42. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.21

French Jr. JRP, Raven B (1959) The bases of social power. In: Studies in social power. UniversityMichigan, Oxford, pp 150–167

Fritz C, van Knippenberg D (2017) Gender and leadership aspiration: the impact of work-lifeinitiatives. Hum Resour Manag 57:855–868. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21875

Gartzia L, van Engen M (2012) Are (male) leaders “feminine” enough? Gend Manag: Int J27:296–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211252624

Gatrell C (2008) Embodying women’s work. Open University Press, MaidenheadGilbert DT, Malone PS (1995) The correspondence bias. Psychol Bull 117:21–38Goldschmidt S, Linde K, Alfermann D, Brähler E (2014) Das Geschlechtsrollenselbstkonzept von

Erwachsenen. Eine Überprüfung der deutschsprachigen Version des Personal Attributes Ques-tionnaire (PAQ) [Gender role self-concept of adults. Testing the German version of the PersonalAttributes Questionnaire (PAQ)]. Psychosozial 37:89–108

Hackman MZ, Hills MJ, Furniss AH, Paterson TJ (1992) Perceptions of gender-role characteristicsand transformational and transactional leadership behaviours. Percept Mot Skills 75:311–319.https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.75.1.311

Heilman ME (2012) Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res Organ Behav 32:113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

Hentschel T, Braun S, Peus C, Frey D (2018) The communality-bonus effect for male transforma-tional leaders – leadership style, gender, and promotability. Eur J Work Organ Psychol27:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1402759

Holst E, Friedrich M (2017) Führungskräfte-Monitor 2017 (Executives‘ Monitor 2017) update1995–2015. DIW, Berlin. Publication no. 121

Holst E, Wrohlich K (2018) Finanzsektor: Frauenanteile in Spitzengremien steigen langsamer als zuBeginn des Jahrzehnts – Geschlechterparität bleibt in weiter Ferne (Financial sector: women’sshare in top-level bodies is rising more slowly than at the beginning of the decade – genderparity remains a long way off). DIW Wochenbericht. https://doi.org/10.18723/diw_wb:2018-1-2

Holton V, Dent FE (2016) A better career environment for women: developing a blueprint forindividuals and organisations. Gend Manag An Int J 31:542–561. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-08-2015-0074

Hoobler JM, Masterson CR, Nkomo SM, Michel EJ (2018) The business case for women leaders:meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. J Manage 44:2473–2499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316628643

24 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

House RJ, Howell JM (1992) Personality and charismatic leadership. Leadersh Q 3:81–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(92)90028-E

Hoyt CL (2010) Women, men, and leadership: exploring the gender gap at the top. Soc PersonalPsychol Compass 4:484–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00274.x

Hyde JS (2014) Gender similarities and differences. Annu Rev Psychol 65:373–398. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115057

Hymowitz C, Schellhardt TD (1986) The glass ceiling: why women can’t seem to break theinvisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. Wall Str J 24:1573–1592

Inesi ME, Cable DM (2015) When accomplishments come back to haunt you: the negative effect ofcompetence signals on women’s performance evaluations. Pers Psychol 68:615–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12083

Javidan M, Bullough A, Dibble R (2016) Mind the gap: gender differences in global leadership self-efficacies. Acad Manag Perspect 30:59–73. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2015.0035

de Jonge J, Dormann C (2006) Stressors, resources, and strain at work: a longitudinal test of thetriple-match principle. J Appl Psychol 91:1359–1374. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1359

Jost JT, van der Toorn J (2012) System justification theory. In: Van Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW,Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of theories in social psychology, vol 2. Sage, London, pp 313–343

Judge TA, Piccolo RF (2004) Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test oftheir relative validity. J Appl Psychol 89:755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

Kanter R (1977) Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to tokenwomen. Am J Sociol 82:965–990

Katila S, Eriksson P (2013) He is a firm, strong-minded and empowering leader, but is she?Gendered positioning of female and male CEOs. Gend Work Organ 20:71–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00570.x

Koch AJ, D’Mello SD, Sackett PR (2015) A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias inexperimental simulations of employment decision making. J Appl Psychol 100:128–161.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036734

Koenig AM, Eagly AH, Mitchell AA, Ristikari T (2011) Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychol Bull 137:616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557

Konrad AM, Ritchie JE Jr, Lieb P, Corrigall E (2000) Sex differences and similarities in job attributepreferences: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 126:593–641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593

Kroska A, Cason TC (2019) The gender gap in business leadership: exploring an affect controltheory explanation. Soc Psychol Q 82:75–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272518806292

Leibbrandt A, List JA (2015) Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scalenatural field experiment. Manag Sci 61:2016–2024. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1994

Lord RG, Day DV, Zaccaro SJ et al (2017) Leadership in applied psychology: three waves of theoryand research. J Appl Psychol 102:434–451

Lyness KS, Grotto AR (2018) Women and leadership in the United States: are we closing the gendergap? Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav 5:227–265. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104739

Magua W, Zhu X, Bhattacharya A et al (2017) Are female applicants disadvantaged in nationalinstitutes of health peer review? Combining algorithmic text mining and qualitative methods todetect evaluative differences in R01 reviewers’ critiques. J Women’s Heal 26:560–570. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.6021

Manning TT (2002) Gender, managerial level, transformational leadership and work satisfaction.Women Manag Rev 17:207–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/09649420210433166

Marusic I, Bratko D (1998) Relations of masculinity and femininity with personality dimensions ofthe five-factor model. Sex Roles 38:29–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018708410947

Molodykh E (2019) Gender and generational cohort effects in perceptions of line managers’transformational leadership style. Unpublished research report. Kingston University, UK

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 25

Paustian-Underdahl SC, Walker LS, Woehr DJ (2014) Gender and perceptions of leadershipeffectiveness: a meta-analysis of contextual moderators. J Appl Psychol 99:1129–1145.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036751

Petrides KV, Furnham A (2000) Gender differences in measured and self-estimated trait emotionalintelligence. Sex Roles 42:449–461. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007006523133

Pounder JS, Coleman M (2002) Women – better leaders than men? In general and educationalmanagement it still “all depends.”. Leadersh Organ Dev J 23:122–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730210424066

Reimann S, Alfermann D (2018) Female doctors in conflict: how gendering processes in Germanhospitals influence female physicians’ careers. Gend Issues 35:52–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-017-9186-9

Reuvers M, van Engen ML, Vinkenburg CJ, Wilson-Evered E (2008) Transformational leadershipand innovative work behaviour: exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creat InnovManag 17:227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2008.00487.x

Rhee KS, Sigler TH (2015) Untangling the relationship between gender and leadership. GendManag An Int J 30:109–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-09-2013-0114

Ridgeway CL (2001) Gender, status, and leadership. J Soc Issues 57:637–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00233

Ridgeway CL, Bourg C (2004) Gender as status: an expectation states theory approach. In: Thepsychology of gender, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New York, pp 217–241

Rosette AS, Tost LP (2010) Agentic women and communal leadership: how role prescriptionsconfer advantage to top women leaders. J Appl Psychol 95:221–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018204

Ross SM, Offermann LR (1997) Transformational leaders: measurement of personality attributesand work group performance. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 23:1078–1086. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672972310008

Rudman LA, Glick P (2008) The social psychology of gender. How power and intimacy shapegender relations. Guilford, New York

Rudman LA, Moss-Racusin CA, Phelan JE, Nauts S (2012) Status incongruity and backlash effects:defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. J Exp Soc Psychol48:165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008

Ryan MK, Haslam SA (2005) The glass cliff: evidence that women are over-represented inprecarious leadership positions. Br J Manag 16:81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00433.x

Schein VE (1973) The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite managementcharacteristics. J Appl Psychol 57:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037128

Schmitt DP, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J (2008) Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sexdifferences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. J Pers Soc Psychol 94:168–182.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Sczesny S, Kühnen U (2004) Meta-cognition about biological sex and gender-stereotypic physicalappearance: consequences for the assessment of leadership competence. Personal Soc PsycholBull 30:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203258831

Small DA, Gelfand M, Babcock L, Gettman H (2007) Who goes to the bargaining table? Theinfluence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 93:600–613

Statistisches Bundesamt (2018) Bildung und Kultur. Personal an Hochschulen. [Education andculture. Staff at universities] Fachserie 11, Reihe 4.4. Accessed via https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Hochschulen/Publikationen/Downloads-Hochschulen/personal-hochschulen-2110440177004.html

Stryker S, Statham A (1985) Symbolic interaction and role theory. In: Lindzey G, Aronson E (eds)Handbook of social psychology, vol 1. Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, pp 311–378

Triana MDC, Richard OC, Yücel İ (2017) Status incongruence and supervisor gender as moderatorsof the transformational leadership to subordinate affective organizational commitment relation-ship. Pers Psychol 70:429–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12154

26 H.-J. Wolfram et al.

Trinidad C, Normore AH (2005) Leadership and gender: a dangerous liaison? Leadersh Organ DevJ 26:574–590. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510624601

Twenge JM (1997) Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles36:305–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766650

Twenge JM (2001) Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: a cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993. J Pers Soc Psychol 81:133–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.133

Van Engen ML, Van der Leeden R, Willemsen TM (2001) Gender, context and leadership styles: afield study. J Occup Organ Psychol 74:581–598. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317901167532

Vinkenburg CJ, van Engen ML, Eagly AH, Johannesen-Schmidt MC (2011) An exploration ofstereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: is transformational leadership a route to women’spromotion? Leadersh Q 22:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.003

Weisberg Y, DeYoung C, Hirsh J (2011) Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects ofthe big five. Front Psychol 2:178

Wille B, Wiernik BM, Vergauwe J et al (2018) Personality characteristics of male and femaleexecutives: distinct pathways to success? J Vocat Behav 106:220–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.02.005

Williams JE, Best DL (1990) Measuring sex stereotypes: a multination study. Sage, Newbury ParkWilliams MJ, Tiedens LZ (2016) The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of penalties for

women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychol Bull 142:165–197. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000039

Wolfram H-J, Gratton L (2014) Gender role self-concept, categorical gender, and transactional-transformational leadership: implications for perceived workgroup performance. J LeadershOrgan Stud 21:338–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813498421

Wolfram H-J, Mohr G (2010) Gender-typicality of economic sectors and gender-composition ofworking groups as moderating variables in leadership research. Gend Manag: Int J 25:320–339.https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411011048182

Yoder JD (2001) Making leadership work more effectively for women. J Soc Issues 57:815–828.https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00243

Zucco A (2019) Strong correlation between large gender pay gaps and non-linear pay in certainoccupations. DIW Wkly Rep 9:77–85. https://doi.org/10.18723/diw_dwr:2019-10-1

Gender, Gender Self-perceptions, and Workplace Leadership 27