Shopping cart
0 Items | US$ 0.00
8
Introduction
The aim of this study is to give specific answers to questions in the field of differences
in perception of a female leader in an intercultural setting. Gender bias defines the unequal
treatment of women in employment opportunity and expectations due to their gender
(Jamieson, 1996; Sandberg, 2013). In other words, people behave in a different way if they
are dealing with a man or with a woman. When it comes to promotions and negotiations of
salary, studies show that people prefer a man (Sandberg, 2013). Several studies underline
this founding and give form to the phenomena called "glass ceiling" (Contreras Torres,
Pedraza Ortiz, & Mejia Restrepo, 2012; Yukl, 2011, pp. 466-467). There is little or no
research until now that this researcher has seen which has the gender bias as objective using
a specific communication situation in an intercultural setting. This investigation will aim to
capture intercultural differences in the perception of a feedback situation if held by a male or
female leader. The questions that will be answered will cover: Do people from different
nationalities perceive the same leader in the same situation in different ways? Do they
perceive a leader differently if the leader is male or female? Is there a significant difference
in like/dislike of one of the two genders in function of the gender and of the nationality of
the test persons? Is there any difference in liking a leader depending on the gender or
nationality of the people who give their evaluation?
The low number of women in charge of high-level leadership positions in different
types of organizations suggests a widespread discrimination against women: 21.3% of the
seats in parliaments globally are held by women (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2013); in
December 2012, 17 out of 195 independent countries in the world were led by women (CIA,
2012); 4.2 % of the Fortune 500 in 2012 were women (Sellers, 2012); leading women in
scientific fields are outnumbered by men (Hill, Corbett, & Rose, 2010). Generally the
numbers show a gradual increasing tendency in the last years, but still very few women hold
9
high executive positions in large business organizations (Catalyst, 2003; Contreras Torres et
al., 2012; Guzman & Rodriguez, 2008; Powell & Graves, 2003; Ragins, Townsend, &
Mattis, 1998) and most of them who have reached the peak have reported that they have
suffered from discrimination on their way up through the organization (Sandberg, 2013).
This discrimination seems to be stronger in male-dominated industries (Gardiner &
Tiggemann, 1999). The role and effects of "gender bias" is present in every workplace and
organization (Jamieson, 1996; Sandberg, 2013). Women are, as a consequence, trapped in a
"double bind", a psychological impasse and dilemma in communication that is created when
an individual or a group receives two or more incongruent and conflictive messages, one of
which negates the other (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956). In this way a
situation is created where the successful response to one message results in a failed response
to the other (and vice versa). In this way the person will automatically be wrong regardless
of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot face and cope with the inherent
dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor back out of the dilemmatic situation
(Bateson et al., 1956; Jamieson, 1995). As described by Bateson et al. (1956) the "double
bind" refers to "a situation in which, no matter what a person does, he or she "can't win" (p.
251). Due to the stereotypical perception of women in an organization, this means that
whatever women do, they can do no right, so that as a result, men are preferred for
leadership positions and as a result it is very hard for a woman to climb up the ladder of
success (Catalyst, 2007). The tendency to prefer men to women when it comes to fill top
leadership positions is called "glass ceiling" (Segerman-Peck, 1991; Yukl, 2011, pp. 466-
467). One explanation for the glass ceiling is the biased belief that women do not possess the
skills necessary to lead effectively as these skills are viewed as typically masculine (Schein,
1975; Stogdill, 1974). "For a long time, women were assumed to be unable or unwilling to
use the masculine behaviors considered essential for effective leadership" (Yukl, 2011, p.
10
467). In other words, the feminine stereotype shows a figure distant from the leader model
mostly accepted by the many cultures and seems to be the principal cause for the glass
ceiling effect (Contreras Torres et al., 2011). This is perceived by more than 85% of female
leaders as the most important barrier on the way to higher positions in an organization
(Catalyst, 2006). Several authors (Ragins et al., 1998; Schein, 2001; Tharenou, Latimer, &
Conroy, 1994) suggested other reasons for the "glass ceiling" theory like: lack of visibility in
the organization; lack of action by managers responsible for ensuring equal opportunity; bias
to promote other managers similar to the managers taking the selection decision; higher
standards of performance for women; lack of opportunity for effective mentoring programs;
exclusion of women from informal communication programs that can offer promotion
opportunities; lack of strong effort to be promoted or to obtain higher executive positions;
demanding family situations; intentional efforts by some men to control and retain for
themselves the best and more powerful leadership positions. Further studies show that
women are less likely to ask for promotion and initiate a negotiation that can favor them
(Babcock & Laschever, 2003) and that they have limited access to formal and informal
networks in the organization (Bell & Nkomo, 2001). These explanations show a combination
of factors that make the climate in an organization inhospitable and almost hostile for a
woman. This situation is even worse if an organization has had previously a man in power so
that a male-style interaction has been established as a norm (Tannen, 1996). Sandberg (2013)
argues that these behaviors are the consequences of a stereotypical perception. In other
words, women behave in a certain way because people do not let them behave in any another
way. If they do, for example they behave more aggressively or more directive, they are said
to be bad leaders. This is known as the Double-Bind-trap (Jamieson, 1995; Sandberg, 2013;
Catalyst, 2007). Hollander and Yoder (1980) explained via a research review that the role
expectations, style, and task demands of particular situations are responsible for the
11
differences in the leadership behavior perception between men and women. In a survey
conducted in 1985, most managers (male and female) thought that women have to be
exceptional to have success in business and that women had a pessimistic view about their
chances in the workforce because they thought that they have to struggle more in order to
succeed and that their wage will be smaller than their male counterparts (Sutton & Moore,
1985). The last factor is called the "vertical division of labor", that refers to the inequality in
status and in pay between man and women and precisely it argues that women on average
earn less money than men even though they are exercising the same profession with the
same or better outcomes (Babcock et al., 2003; Blau & Kahn, 2007; Burr, 2003; Fernandez,
2006; Jamieson, 1995; Maruani, 1993; Moen, 1995). In the related "horizontal division of
labor" careers, jobs and professions are gendered so that some jobs are seen more female-
relevant and others more male-relevant and in many companies the sexes are segregated
according to their positions. For example, women's jobs are seen as supportive and caring
(such as secretary, nursery school teachers and nurses) and men's jobs are seen more
directive (such as electronic engineers, managers and programmers) (Bass, 2008, p. 903;
Burr, 2003; Maruani, 1993). An interaction of the horizontal and vertical divisions interact
such that men, entering a job career that is associated with women, are likely to ascend
higher and more quickly to a leading position (Burr, 2003). According to Kling (1975) there
is a positive correlation between testosterone levels and aggression. Persky, Smith, and Basu
(1971) found a positive correlation between aggressive and hostile behavior testing a sample
of men. According to these studies women's lack of assertiveness and aggression is the
reason why they do not ascend and may avoid the senior well-paid jobs (Burr, 2003).
Aggressiveness is the clearest difference identified by Maccoby and Jacklin (1974). In this
study the researchers reviewed the results of several studies in the field of gender
differences. They concluded that women and men differ in other 3 areas: mathematical
12
abilities (boys overtake girls more or less at the age of 12) visual-spatial abilities (boys are
better than girls in embedded figure tests, frame tests and identifying rotated figures); verbal
abilities (girls show more competence in fluency, creative writing and comprehension).
Other differences are due to the environmental influences of parents and other interacting
persons that according to their stereotypical perception treat boys and girls in a different way
(Codry & Codry, 1976).
In this context Eagly (1987) suggests the "social role theory". This theory recognizes
the historical division in labor between women (often assuming responsibilities at home) and
men (assuming responsibilities outside of the home). According to this hypothesis the
expectations of women and men are dependent and related to the sex differences in social
behavior and such expectations are transmitted to future generations influencing the behavior
and expectancies of each gender (Eagly, 1987, 1997; Eagly, Wood, & Diekman, 2000). As
consequence the behavior of women and men is strongly influenced by the stereotypes of
their social roles. The theory can explain the difference in perception of a male or a female
leader and the reasons why it is difficult for a woman to ascend in male dominated labor
worlds (Godoy & Mladinic, 2009). Other consequences of the differences just mentioned
above reveal differences in communication and leadership styles (Contreras Torres et al.,
2011; Tannen, 1994, 1996). This does not mean that women are worse leaders than the male
counterparts (Sandberg, 2013).
Women and transformational leadership
Some studies reported that the outcome of the female and male leadership styles had
no significant difference (Judeh, 2010; Manning, 2002). A study by Eagly, Johannesen-
Schmidt, and Van Engen, (2002) showed instead that female leaders were rated by their
subordinates as being more transformational leaders than male leaders. The study consisted
13
of a meta-analysis of 45 studies of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire
leadership styles.
The transformational leadership theory was described by Bass & Avolio (1994) and
consists in a concept of leadership as "exceptional leadership performance that exist when
leaders broaden and elevate the interests of their followers, when they generate awareness
and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and when those leaders stir their
followers to look beyond their self-interest for the group benefit" (Judeh, 2010, p. 1-2).
Bass & Avolio (1994) explain in the Full Range Leadership Theory (FRLT) that every
leader should use different styles of leadership in order to be effective. The different styles
can be summarized as following: Laissez-faire leadership style: the leader is absent and let
the subordinates decide; Management by exception: the leader intervene shortly before or
after a mistake has made by subordinates; Transactional leadership: leader and subordinates
exchange e.g. services, work, development program with wage, free time or praise;
Transformational leadership: inspires and motivates through effective communication,
through her charismatic power, through positive interactions and positive influence.
In order to measure the perception of a leader by his followers according to the Full
Range Leadership Theory (Avolio, 2011), the researchers mentioned above (Judeh, 2010;
Manning, 2002; Eagly et al., 2010), used the MLQ (multifactor leadership questionnaire), a
tool developed by Bass and Avolio (2000) selves. The MLQ is a questionnaire similar to a
360° questionnaire, which is sent, usually electronically, to various employees and
supervisors of the executive who is being assessed, and completed by those persons. The
completed questionnaires are returned electronically to the institution that is doing the
evaluation. A copy is filled out by the executive himself or herself, the so-called Self-Score
Version. The evaluation is also sent electronically, and a profile of the executive is created.
14
The concept of transformational leadership shows a type of leader that is valued as
effective, well accepted and admired, and that it represents a role model because of their
inspirational and charismatic characteristics (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bass & Riggio, 2006;
Yukl, 2011). Results of the research program GLOBE confirm that the transformational
leadership style is valued positively and effectively by every country and culture (Dorfman,
Hanges, & Brodbeck, 2004). The study by Eagly et al. (2003), mentioned above, shows
contradictory results with other studies that suggest clearly that female leaders in the
workplace are less liked than their male colleagues even though they are perceived as
competent (Catalyst, 2007). The transformational leader in fact is liked and respected, is seen
as social and empathetic and has high interpersonal competences such as social skills. Social
skills include, for example, empathy and communication abilities and leaders help their
subordinates satisfy their personal needs (Hall & Donnell, 1979; Hogan & Hogan, 2002).
That is why a female leader can fast relate to others and as a consequence could advance
faster in her career (Hall & Donnell, 1979). Nevertheless recent studies that analyze the
different types of leadership shown by women and men, report that women leaders tend to
show a more transformational leadership style, the most effective style in an organization
(Eagly & Carli, 2004, 2007; García-Retamero & López-Zafra, 2006).
Conflicting stereotypes
The tendency of the interpretation of sex-related stereotypes in management and
leadership is showing a slow positive change in favor of the perception for women leaders. A
comparison of surveys about the perception of women in business showed that managers'
perception has changed enormously in favor of women (Sutton & Moore, 1985). A recent
poll conducted in August 2013 by Gallup - Gallup's annual Work and Education survey
(Newport, & Wilke, 2013) showed that 35% of the interviewed Americans (independently of
their working status and of the gender) prefer to have a man as boss, and 23% prefer to have
15
a woman as a boss and 41% declared that it makes no difference if they have a woman or a
man as a boss. A comparison made also by Gullop (Newport & Wilke, 2013) using the same
survey that has been repeated almost every year since 1953 showed an increased tendency in
preferring a woman as a boss, and a decrease tendency in preferring a man. In 1953 only 5%
preferred a female boss, 66% a male boss and 25% said that it did not make a difference.
One reason for this trend is suggested by the fact that in the survey of 2013 the preference
for a female boss was higher among those people that at the time of the survey were working
for a woman. This result suggests that the contact with female leaders could distort the
stereotypical perception that a woman cannot be a good leader. Another reason could be that
as more women are working in higher directive roles, people who were working for them at
the time of the survey were experiencing them as better leaders than the men they had as a
boss before the survey. The stereotypical image people have of a woman does not fit the
directive role of a leader and as a consequence they do not think women are suitable in
performing higher positions in a company (Bass, 2008, p.906; Bem, 1970; Bowman,
Worthy, & Greyser, 1965; Burr, 2003). Further, women are generally considered to be too
emotional and submissive to be effective leaders, aggressive "workaholic" and manipulative
(Heller, 1982). Hence, the stereotypical concepts of "woman" and "leader" may be
incompatible (Schein, 1973, 1975). Kruse and Wintermantel (1986) found in a study with
male students that the concept of "man" has a correlation of .9 with the concept of
"manager" and .8 with the concept of "leadership". On the contrary the concept of "woman"
showed a correlation of -.4 with the concept of "manager" and .5 with the concept of
"leadership". The beliefs that a female leader makes a "worse" leader are also common
among women (O'Leary, 1974; McLelland, 1965). In a study of women in leadership
positions in the fields of science and technology the difficulties arising in a man dominated
world were evaluated. The study reported that, in order to be recognized as a "leader", they
16
had to assume some specific types of characteristics, such as aggression, authority, harder
and strong character, characteristics normally associated with men (Yañez & Godoy, 2008).
In a dissertation study Seifert (1984) showed the power of stereotypical beliefs. Seifert
let male and female participants think that they were working with female and male leaders
and that the leaders were selected randomly. In the truth they were receiving the same
standardized communication messages from the experimenter. The participants who thought
they were receiving directions from a male leader evaluated the communication clearer and
the female leaders were rated less fairly selected than were male leaders (Seifert, 1984). In
the study it is not mentioned if the boss is seen as more competent or more empathetic. It
would be also interesting to test differences among cultures as the study reflects the thoughts
of Americans (like the most studies mentioned above).
Another must recent study conducted by Godoy & Mladinic (2009) investigates the
perception of leaders offering a description of an efficient, competent and successful leader.
The description was offered in two dimensions, giving a male and a female leader. The
testing individuals had the task to evaluate the person through questions using a Likert scale
from 1 to 7. The dependent variables were divided into labor (leadership effectiveness; task
orientation; interpersonal orientation; cognitive skills; recommendations about
organizational recompense; salary and promotion) and personal issues (general evaluation as
person; pleasant and sympathy level; if they would ask the person for support of advice in
case of personal problems; if they would establish a friendship with this person). The results
showed no significant difference in the evaluation, in other words "neither the participant's
nor the target's sex influenced evaluations" (Godoy & Mladinic, 2009, p. 51). The male
leader did not receive better evaluation than the female leader. In the study Godoy &
Mladinic (2009) do not report if the testing persons have already had experiences working
17
with a female leader, as reported by the Gullop survey (Newport & Wilke, 2013) explained
above.
After a review of the literature and of the studies in the field of stereotypical
perceptions the question about how people feel about a male or female leader in a specific
situation was not conclusive. The study by Seifert (1984) offers a way of answering, in a
vague manner, the above question but as the study is almost 30 years old. Additionally, as
reflected in the Gullop poll (Newport & Wilke, 2013) already mentioned, the tendency of
how people see a woman as a leader is changing so that, from the point of view of this study,
a new research in the area is required. The study by Godoy & Mladinic (2009) offers a more
positive view about how people perceive a male and a female leader, but the study shows
only a description, not a communication interaction between the leader and other actors (for
example other employees). Most difficulties that women have in ascending a male
dominated world happen during interactions with other people who can be responsible for a
higher position. As described by several communication experts (Lay, 1978; Pearce &
Cronen, 2006; Schulz von Thun, 2010; Schulz von Thun, Ruppel, & Stratmann, 2000;
Watzlawick, 2005) social reality is created through the way we see our interactions with
others and through the words and sentences we use to communicate with each other. The
description offered by Godoy & Mladinic (2009) is a static one without offering any
interaction. Communication skills and competences are basic to leadership (Barge &
Hirokawa, 1989) and they are the most important parameters in order to assess the
perception of a leader. Moreover "quality and style of a leader's communication to followers
makes a difference in the success and effectiveness of the leadership" (Bass, 2008, p. 125).
In conclusion, the questions of differences in perception about communication
competences, effectiveness and respect have not been answered concretely in the past.
However, they should, as they form part of the effective leadership model according to the
Excerpt out of 44 pages
- scroll top
Details
- Quote paper
- , 2015, Stereotyping leadership: An investigation about leaders’ perception, Hamburg, Bedey Media GmbH, https://www.anchor-publishing.com/document/312814
Comments