addition, interaction 2 was also insignificant (b = .18, SE = 0.20, t = .91, p = .361, 95% CI [-.21, 0.58]). Thus, it can be concluded that Hypotheses 5 and 6 were rejected.
4.2.6 Hypothesis 7
The final requirement for moderated mediation that needed to be tested for was the interactive effect of the independent variable and the moderator, so assertiveness with leader gender should not be significant when controlling for the interactive effect. The interactive effect, in this case, is assertiveness with gender-stereotypical beliefs of the follower. For hypothesis 7 the complete model was tested with the relationship between the moderators when added simultaneously. Hypothesis 7 was tested with all previous requirements and with the help of PROCESS Model 2 by Hayes (2018): Assertiveness has a stronger negative effect on perceived leader effectiveness for female leaders than male leaders when followers have strong gender-stereotypical beliefs. Interaction 1 was found not be significant (b = -.00, SE = 0.30, t = -.02, p = .982, 95% CI [-.61, 0.60]). In addition, interaction 2 was also insignificant (b = .00, SE = 0.17, t = .05, p = .955, 95% CI [-.33, 0.35]). All effects are insignificant for both high and low levels of the moderator’s leader gender and gender-stereotypical beliefs of the follower.
When both moderators are high for humbleness the effect size is strongest, however negative.
(b = -.08, SE = 0.33, t = -.25, p = .796, 95% CI [-.75, 0.58]). Similarly for assertiveness (b = .06, SE = 0.31, t = .19, p = .844, 95% CI [-.55, 0.67]). Therefore, Hypothesis 7 was rejected.
5 Discussion
leaders. The research question was as follows: “Is the relation of humbleness and assertiveness on the perceived effectiveness of the leader stronger for male leaders compared to female leaders and is this moderating effect explained by employees’ gender-stereotypical beliefs?”
and was answered by testing seven different hypotheses. This study was conducted mainly in the Netherlands, with 145 complete leader-follower dyads (N=145) and was a quantitative study.
Contrary to previous research findings (Rego et al., 2018; Weinberger, 2009) we found no support for the idea that humbleness is positively related to perceived leader effectiveness.
Thus, the results are suggesting that no relationship exists between the variables leader humbleness and perceived effectiveness of the leader. The literature findings are however contradicting as the literature suggested that leader humbleness was positively related to the perceived effectiveness of the leader (Owens & Hekman, 2012).
In addition, no support in the results of this study was found for the idea that assertiveness positively relates to the perceived effectiveness of the leader. Therefore, the results are again suggesting that no relationship exists between leader assertiveness and the perceived effectiveness of the leader. This is again contradicting the literature findings as the literature suggested that leader assertiveness was positively related to the perceived effectiveness of the leader (Ames & Flynn, 2007).
The literature review showed that leader humbleness is more negative for female leaders as they are perceived as less effective leaders when showing humbleness and receive more criticism when showing humbleness (Afshan et al., 2021; Owens & Hekman, 2012). However, contrary to the previously mentioned research findings by Afshan (2021) and Owens and Hekman (2012) no support was found for the belief that leader gender moderates the relationship between leader humbleness and perceived leader effectiveness, such that humble female leaders are perceived as less effective than humble male leaders.
Similarly, there was no support found for the idea that leader gender moderates the relationship between leader assertiveness and perceived leader effectiveness, such that female assertive leaders are perceived as less effective than male assertive leaders. Contradictory to our findings the researched literature showed that female leaders who are assertive are perceived as less effective (Eagly, 1987). This can be explained by the social role theory of Eagly (1987). The social role theory is a theory that argues that gender-stereotypical beliefs are the cause for people having perceptions of males and females in specific social roles in society (Eagly & Wood, 2012). Therefore, females are expected to not be assertive or show their assertiveness in society in general, this belief is created by society (Eagly, 1987).
Additionally, the gender-stereotypical beliefs of followers should have an influence on leader humbleness and perceived leader effectiveness, which should be stronger for male leaders as males are praised for showing humbleness (Bisgaard & Pedersen, 2021). The previous was expected from the literature, however, we could not find the support for the idea that leader humbleness has a stronger positive effect on perceived leader effectiveness leaders when followers have strong gender-stereotypical beliefs.
Likewise, we found no support for the belief that assertiveness has a stronger negative effect on perceived leader effectiveness when followers have strong gender-stereotypical beliefs. The literature suggested that assertiveness had a more negative effect on female leaders as opposed to male leaders when followers have strong gender-stereotypical beliefs (Eagly &
Karau, 2002; Rudman, 1998). However, the results were not able to confirm this, again contradictory to our findings.
All in all, when having tested the complete model, contrary to previous findings in the literature (Madden, 2011; Taylor, 2013), we found no support for the idea that the moderating effect of leader gender will be mediated by the moderating effect of stereotypical beliefs on the relationships between leader humbleness and leader assertiveness with perceived leader effectiveness. The whole model was tested; however, no significant result was found for this
hypothesis. While literature suggests that a relationship does exist between the moderator's leader gender and the gender-stereotypical beliefs of the follower (Madden, 2011).
All hypotheses were rejected and not supported by this study which is contradicting the literature findings (Afshan et al., 2021; Ames & Flynn, 2007; Bisgaard & Pedersen, 2021;
Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Madden, 2011; Owens & Hekman, 2012; Rudman, 1998).
Previous literature however shows that there is proof for the hypotheses, only in this study there is no evidence that leader humbleness and leader assertiveness are judged differently. This could have to do with the limitations of this study which will be discussed later in this section.
There are more theoretical reasons that could be attributed to the fact that there were no significant results found in this study. When we look at the mean of the variable gender-stereotypical beliefs we can see this is quite low (M=2.46), there is, however, sufficient variation. This means that most participants of the study had low gender-stereotypical beliefs.
If we look at previous research the mean is somewhat similar. An example of this is a study about gender-stereotypical beliefs in the classroom, here the mean was 3.1 (Ifegbesan, 2010).
Thus, our mean for gender-stereotypical beliefs is really on the lower side, meaning a general low score for gender-stereotypical beliefs in our sample. A reason for this could be that by coincidence our sample existed of a group of modern-day people. These are people that are more open-minded and are raised with the idea that males and females can be similar in terms of characteristics and behavior and thus think less stereotypically (Fischbach et al., 2015).
Another reason for the low mean score could be that our respondents gave socially desirable answers while filling out the survey. Respondents do this as they think these answers make them look good and answer based on the desirability of values that are based on cultural norms (Steenkamp et al., 2010). Therefore, respondents think that being a person that is not judgmental and does not think stereotypically makes one look good (Barcaccia et al., 2019; Neckar &
Lazaro Szlachta, 2019). The low mean score for gender-stereotypical beliefs could also be caused by the fact that people became less gender-biased (Berenbaum, 2019). There is proof
for this statement as a study that showed gender bias over time found that over the past 10 years gender-bias has decreased substantially (Tang et al., 2017).
Another theoretical reason that could be attributed to the fact that no significant results were found in this study is that humbleness and assertiveness of the leader was not expressed enough or not observed by the followers. This is because theory suggests that in psychological strong situations traits are less expressed in behavior (Tett & Burnett, 2003). This could have played a role as previous research suggests that there is mostly a trait intention, a willingness to show a specific trait, however, less trait activation, meaning that in practice traits are less expressed in behavior (Tett & Guterman, 2000). Thus, the chances for a follower to observe a specific trait is therefore also lower.