Sex and gender differences in leadership
A variety of situational, cultural, and individual variables affect the results of studies, as do time periods, which makes it difficult to summarize overall differences.
[16] Several studies show women “are less likely than similarly qualified men to obtain jobs with higher social and monetary rewards … and to gain access to positions of power” and earn less for equivalent work, “even after adjusting for education and preferences for full-time employment.”[4]: 166 The representation and compensation of gender-diverse leaders is unknown due to lack of research.
[17][15] Studies suggest that sex discrimination against women leaders may best be explained by viewing relevant social systems as inherently gendered, rather than focusing individual situations and personal attributes.
[15][17] The glass cliff phenomenon refers to “the tendency for women to be more likely than men to be appointed to risky or precarious leadership positions, encapsulated by the phrase “think crisis—think female”.
Women’s preferences are shaped by cultural and social norms, gender biases of teachers and parents, and the emotional and nonverbal reactions they experience throughout adulthood.
[2] Male-dominated contexts, whether at the industry or company level, also disadvantage women, due to tokenism, stereotypes about lack of fit, and exclusion from informal networks.
[3] In the United States, people’s attitudes toward the idea of a woman as president, willingness to work for a female boss, and women leaders in general are more positive than in the past.
Decades of research have found that women are “given less access to training, poorer performance evaluation, and fewer organizational rewards” than similarly qualified men.
[4] For example, traits like dominance, insensitivity, ambition, assertive, and emotional displays of anger and pride are considered “off-limits for women.” At the same time, women are penalized for not engaging in stereotypical feminine behaviors like care, altruism and agreeableness.
[4]: 177–178 Women who defy these prescriptive stereotypes face several disadvantages, including lower chances of recruitment, less favorable negotiation outcomes, diminished influence, limited access to social networks, and worse salary recommendations.
[4]: 178 However, if a woman's success can be attributed to external factors, such as an accident, following someone else's suggestion, or providing a communal justification, the penalty for violating gender norms is reduced.
Leadership scholars have begun engaging with gender studies to explore different kinds of masculinity, rather than assuming a universal construct of manhood.
Authors of an extensive literature concluded that “a large proportion of the studies on female leadership rely on correlational data,” which means they are unable to make causal claims and are susceptible to endogeneity issues,[2] where the effect of one variable on another “cannot be interpreted because it includes omitted causes”.
[51] Recent research agendas call for addressing these gaps by incorporating findings from studies involving leaders of color, non-Western cultures, and LGBT individuals.
In 1996, Park proposed a model of androgynous leadership, where androgyny was defined as “the combined presence of socially valued, stereotypic, feminine and masculine characteristics.
A study with transgender leaders found they demonstrated fluency with both masculine and feminine styles and drew from behaviors learned in previous gender socializations.
[81][82] The intersection of gender and sexual orientation with leadership raises issues such as identity disclosure, stigma, group composition, and the importance of situational factors.
[9] Studies with male leaders of color[77][84] and gay men[85] have shown that default assumptions about masculine leadership don’t hold up for all other social identities.
Significant research has studied how the social construction of masculinity influences “how men experience education environments and engage in leadership learning.
[17]: 915–919 Carli and Eagly summarized research findings that men demonstrate more aggression, assertiveness, dominance, and “to a very slight degree,” competitiveness, but note that successful contemporary leadership now requires abilities “to form good relationships with others, work in diverse teams, and influence and motive others to make valuable and creative contributions.”[3]: 105 Offerman and Foley reported that “women as a group may have a leadership advantage in terms of enhanced extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, while having a disadvantage in their higher neuroticism.”[22] Carli and Eagly conclude, “neither gender has a leadership advantage in personality”[3]: 105 and Shen and Joseph similarly assert that it is unclear whether men and women leaders differ in leadership-related skills.
However, in looking at their leadership experiences, researchers have identified some common patterns in how these leaders overcome discrimination and done work to understand their identities in the context of society.
[94] Women are also expected to show higher levels of servant leadership (Beck, 2014; Hogue, 2016), and those who use this style tend to have better effects on performance outcomes than men.
[102] These studies illustrate the relevance of contextual factors such as organizational type and gender distribution of employees, as well as the importance of looking at behaviors rather than large theoretical constructs.
[99] Black trans man leaders noted prejudice against their skin color meant they generally stayed closeted until they could change organizations and begin anew with their new gender identity.
[2] The glass cliff phenomenon refers to “the tendency for women to be more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions that are risky and precarious” or “think crisis—think female.”[18] In a review of ten years of research, Ryan and colleagues found this phenomenon to be “nuanced and context-dependent,” dependent on factors such as “the ways in which organizational performance is indexed,” selection bias, gender stereotypes, and the strategic need for organizational change.
[18] They found evidence that glass cliffs arise when a scapegoat is needed or when the issues at hand relate to people and personnel, and not when the crisis requires leaders to act as spokesperson or improve performance.
[2] Scholars encourage future studies about women’s and gender diverse leader emergence that explore the cultivation of resilience, achievement orientation, and self-confidence.
The approach and specific research questions matter a great deal, as meta analyses[112] and reviews[12] that look across unalike studies have mixed findings concerning effectiveness differences, depending on context and recency.
Scholars note that these types of studies are correlational and could indicate something about the organizations rather than the current leader; for example, perhaps companies who are “progressive enough to be promoting women into their top management teams” have an edge in selecting overall talent.
[22] Social media and other online technologies can also facilitate informal leadership roles which intersect with gender-related behaviors such as interpersonal communication and community focused actions.
