Women Still Underrepresented in
Top-Leadership Positions; Due to Prejudice or to
Gender Differences?
Bachelor thesis Work- and Organizational Psychology University of Amsterdam
Emma White 10219218
Supervisor: mw. S. Gündemir Word count abstract: 134 Word count: 6563
Abstract
By examining the relative roles of internal and external factors, this paper attempted to reveal the cause of the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. Initially, the external factors i.e. prejudice against women in leadership positions, and possible factors influencing this prejudice, were examined. Secondly, it was investigated whether internal factors i.e. gender differences in beliefs, behaviour and priorities, were the cause of this underrepresentation of women. Overall, it was found that the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions is a result of an interplay of prejudice against women and gender differences. The prejudice against women in these positions appears to be a huge barrier in their career advancement. Women also appear to differ from men in their beliefs, behaviours and priorities with regard to leadership positions in careers, further hindering their career advancement.
Index:
Women still underrepresented in top-leadership positions;
Due to prejudice or to gender differences? Page 4
Prejudice against women is the cause of their
underrepresentation in top-leadership positions Page 7 Gender differences is the cause of the underrepresentation
of women in top-leadership positions Page 14
Discussion and conclusion Page 21
References Page 24
Women Still Underrepresented in Top-Leadership Positions; Due to Prejudice or to
Gender Differences?
It is staggering that in this day and age there is still no equal ratio of men and women in the workplace. Statistics show that the worldwide economic participation gap between genders is slowly closing, currently 60%. However, there is still no country in the world that has been able to achieve gender equality in the workplace (Global Gender Gap Report, 2012). Even more distressing, is that only 16 % of all top-leadership positions in large corporations are held by women (Hesse-Biber & Carter, 2005) and that as little as 5% of large companies are headed by women CEOs (Catalyst, 2011). This strongly suggests that the largest gender gap in economic participation still remains in upper-level management positions.
The Global Gender Gap Report (2012) states that in order to maximize
competitiveness and the developmental potential of a country, every country must strive for gender equality in the workplace; providing men and women with equal rights,
responsibilities and opportunities. As women account for one-half of a countries human talent, closing the gender gap in economic participation is a matter of human rights, equity, and also necessity. Closing the gender gap in upper-level management positions would therefore lead to a more efficient use of a countries human talent resources and would increase its productivity and economic growth.
What are the reasons as to why women are still so hugely underrepresented in top-leadership positions? There are two separate perspectives that may explain this
underrepresentation; that of external and of internal factors. In line with the external perspective, the dominant view held on this issue is that of 'the glass ceiling'. 'The glass ceiling' represents a barrier of prejudice and discrimination against women that has lead to their exclusion from leadership positions (Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995; Morrison, White, & van Velsor, 1987). The Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002)
states that this prejudice stems from a perceived incongruity between the female gender-role; in which a woman is generally viewed as soft, caring and possessing more nurturing attributes (Hoobler, 2007), and that of a leadership-role; in which the leadership-role is generally
viewed as masculine (Fernandes & Cabral‐Cardoso, 2003). The theory states that this
incongruity between the female gender-role and the masculine leader-role leads to two forms of prejudice: that of perceiving women less favourably than men as potential occupants of leadership-roles, and that of evaluating behaviour that fulfills the criteria of a leader-role less favourably when it is executed by a woman. The Role Congruity Theory posits that the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions is caused by the perceived
incongruity between women and leader-roles, leading to a barrier of prejudice against women aiming for, and in, these positions.
The internal perspective posits that actual gender differences explain the
underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. In line with this perspective, the Evolutionary Model (Van Vugt, Johson, Kaiser, & O'Gorman, 2008) proposes that male leadership was the norm in our ancestral environments and is therefore the reason why it still is today. This perspective provides two reasons for why this was the norm: the obvious physical advantages of men, and their greater drive for higher social status. A higher social status lead to more wives and offspring and therefore to greater reproductive success, which increased their social status further and therefore their chances of emerging as a leader. This perspective states that men have evolved to have a greater desire for leadership than women, as this equates to greater social status and (in recent times) income, therefore reinforcing the male bias and male dominance in leadership emergence in modern day society. The
Evolutionary perspective posits that evolution has lead to gender differences in career goals and attainments; the greater drive of men for top-leadership positions in contrast to women.A more extreme internal perspective on this issue is that of the Preference Theory (Hakim,
2000). Hakim states that nowadays women in Western countries genuinely have the same equal opportunities and choices as men, and that there are no major obstacles limiting or forcing their choices. Furthermore, it is lifestyle choices rather than the constraints of society and the workplace that guide their decisions. Overall, the internal perspective posits that it isn't prejudice that has lead to women's underrepresentation in top-leadership positions, but that it is women's different perceptions and behaviours that has lead to women being less likely than men to want to pursue these positions.
It is now clear that women are underrepresented in top-leadership positions, however it is unclearwhy. In line with the external perspective, many researchers (Bryson, 1992; Philips, 2004) state that there are no ‘natural’ gender differences, and that discrimination against women is the main cause of their underrepresentation in top- leadership positions. In support of this, some earlier studies (Eagly, 2004; Jacobs, 1999) have demonstrated that women do not have equal access to higher organizational positions in most circumstances. Furthermore, other studies (Babcock & Leschever, 2003; Hudgens & Linda-Torsani, 1985) in line with the internal perspective state that men and women do differ significantly in
leadership traits, women being less likely to possess them, and therefore making women less likely to execute these leadership roles.
The main aim of this review is to reveal the cause of the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. Answering this question is important because although much research has been done examining the external and internal perspectives separately as the cause of this underrepresentation, they have never been examined together. This review will collectively examine these studies, and will be able to draw an overall conclusion about why there is still an underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. This will lead to a greater understanding and possible insights into reducing this underrepresentation. Reducing this underrepresentation will consequently lead to a better utilization of female
human talent, leading to greater economic prosperity for all.
Firstly, this will be examined by taking a closer look at the external perspective, whether prejudice against women is the reason behind their underrepresentation in top-leadership positions. Factors influencing this prejudice against women will also be
investigated. Secondly, the internal perspective will be examined. The studies will be looking at whether actual gender differences are the cause of the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions; whether women behave, believe and prioritize differently to men with respect to employment. Finally, limitations and implications of this paper will be discussed, and directions for future research will be provided.
Prejudice Against Women is the Cause of their Underrepresentation in Top-
Leadership Positions
This paragraph will take a closer look at the external perspective, whether prejudice against women is the cause of their underrepresentation in top-leadership positions. In order to investigate whether prejudice against women in these still positions exists, it is important to understand how this prejudice arises. The potential for prejudice is present when there is a discrepancy between the stereotypes about members of a social group, and the attributes thought to be required for success in certain social-roles (Eagly, in press). When a member of the stereotyped group and an incongruent social-role are joined in the mind of the perceiver, this incongruity will lower the evaluation of the group member as an occupant or potential occupant of this particular social-role (Eagly & Karau, 2002). This is what the Role Congruity Theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) proposes happens when a female group member, being the stereotyped group member, and the male leader-role (Fernandes & Cabral-Cardoso, 2003) are joined in the mind of the perceiver. This consequently leads to dissimilar beliefs about leaders and women, causing the prevalent prejudice against women in leadership positions. This
paragraph will aim to investigate how much this prejudice explains the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. Firstly, studies will be examined investigating whether, and in what areas of the organizational context, this prejudice against women exists.
Secondly, this paragraph will look into what (e.g. poor company performance) may be feeding into this prejudice against women emerging as leaders, and in leadership positions. Powell, Butterfield, and Parent (2002) investigated men's and women's stereotypical views of managers. The results demonstrated that the participants did place less emphasis on the masculine characteristics of their manager stereotypes than in earlier studies, however they still perceived a successful manager as being predominantly masculine. Powell, Butterfield, and Parent (2002) provide empirical support for the Role Congruity Theory, demonstrating that leadership qualities are viewed as being more similar to men than to women. This provides evidence for the still prevailing male leader-role, and its incongruence with the female gender-role. Garcia-Retamero and Lopez-Zafra (2006) take a step further and investigate bias against appointing women to leadership positions. They experimentally tested the influence gender has on the perceivers' perception of incongruity between the leader-role and the gender-role. Male and female participants evaluated a male or female candidate's suitability for a leadership position in an unspecified industry or an industry (automobile industry being male, and fashion industry being female) that was either congruent or
incongruent with the candidate's gender-role. The results demonstrated that male and female participants favoured the male over the female candidate for the leadership position in a male and unspecified type industry. Evaluations of women's suitability for a leadership position was poorest when they worked in a male type industry, and wasn't evident when they worked in the female type industry. In conclusion, this article states that due to a greater perceived role-incongruity of women in these industries, prejudice against women in today's mainly masculine work environments exists. This article supports the existence of a bias against
appointing women to leadership positions, and supports the Role Congruity Theory as this bias was most strongly present against women in role-incongruent industries. Moreover, how is this bias against women expressed? In order to tackle the problem in bias it is important to know how this bias operates. Lyness and Heilman (2006) examined whether there are gender differences in the relationships of performance evaluations to promotions. This was
investigated by studying archival organizational data. The results demonstrated that promoted women had received higher performance ratings than promoted men, demonstrating that women had to meet higher criteria than men in order to gain promotion. This shows that the bias against appointing female candidates to leadership positions is partly expressed in the promotion criteria that women must meet, which are higher than those for men.
As the above two articles shed light on one area of bias, it is important to investigate other possible areas in order to create a more complete picture of all the areas of bias and processes behind this prejudice. The following study will examine whether and how bias exists in the job context of women, more specifically at the allocation of challenging job tasks. Challenging tasks refer to tasks and situations in which new ways of dealing with tasks are required (Davies & Easterby-Smith, 1984). Literature (De Pater, Van Vianen, Bechtholdt, & Klehe, 2009) suggests that the extent to which individuals engage in challenging job experiences are important determinants of promotability. Researchers (e.g. Ohlottet et al, 1994) examining possible gender differences in the allocation of challenging tasks have proposed that women may have less of these due to differential assignment of them by their employers. De Pater, Van Vianen, and Bechtoldt (2010) investigated whether there are gender differences in experiencing challenging job tasks. Two studies were performed. The first looked at gender differences in challenging job experiences. The second examined whether differential assignment of challenging tasks to male and female employees underlies the gender differences in the number of these job experiences. The results demonstrated that
female employees were allocated fewer challenging job tasks by their employer than their male counterparts.
Two areas of bias have now been discussed; hiring and promotion processes and the allocation of challenging job tasks, which has proven to be an important criteria for
promotability assessments. However, the reasons behind these biases have not yet been examined. Reasons for bias and prejudice against women have been ascribed to a variety of causes, such as women’s family responsibilities (Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999). A greater expected family-work conflict for women, means that women are expected to experience more interference from family responsibilities with their work responsibilities. Women are then expected to be more likely to choose family over work in their battle for aiming to juggle both (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). This could possibly be an explanation for prejudice when hiring and promoting women. Earlier research (Hoobler, 2007) supports this, stating that women are typically viewed from a stay-at-home, caring perspective. Hoobler, Wayne, and Lemmon (2009) examined whether this is the case. In a survey study they investigated whether supervisors (both male and female) perceived women as having a greater family-work conflict than men, and whether this was linked to the promotability of women. The results demonstrated that supervisors associated female employees with a greater family-work conflict than their male counterparts, which lead to supervisors viewing female employees as a poorer fit to the job. Consequently, this lead to female employees being viewed as less eligible for promotionthan their male counterparts. These findings show that expected family-work conflict is a potential reason behind the bias and prejudice against women in leadership positions.
In order to strengthen this finding, Heilman and Okimoto (2008) examined this experimentally. Whereas Hoobler et al. (2009) didn't differentiate between bias against mothers and non-mothers, the following study from Heilman and Okimoto (2008) does. Such
differentiation is especially important in the context of family-work conflict, because family responsibilities should be more prevalent when children come into the picture. Furthermore, this study takes an even closer look at the bias against women, and investigates in what areas of the assessment of female candidates the bias mainly exists. Heilman and Okimoto (2008) examined whether women experience more disadvantages in workplaces when they are mothers. A mother, father, and a male and female without children were evaluated by male and female participants for a leadership position. They were evaluated on anticipated job commitment for the position, anticipated competence (expected job performance if hired for the position), and screening recommendations (whether the candidate was to be considered further for the position or eliminated). The results demonstrated an overall greater bias against mothers than fathers, and a greater bias against mothers compared to non-mothers. Mothers were expected to have lower job performance if hired, and were mostly eliminated in the screening recommendations. These findings suggest that motherhood invokes an even greater incongruity between the female gender-role and traditional male positions, creating an even greater bias against mothers, and therefore a hinder in their career advancement. This study provides support for family-work conflict as a reason behind the bias and prejudice against women in leadership positions
Looking at these previous articles, it can be stated that prejudice against women is evident in the workplace. Bias exists in hiring procedures, performance evaluations, and promotions, and is expressed by creating higher performance criteria for women compared to men and through differential allocation of challenging tasks. Furthermore, these biases stem from a heightened perception of role incongruity between the female gender-role and the masculine leader-role, and also from a heightened expectation of family-work conflict for women and especially for mothers. However, despite the significant obstacles that women face in leadership emergence, a few women have managed to attain top-leadership positions
in a number of large corporations. Remarkably, it is in times of crisis that women seem to be preferentially promoted to higher leadership positions. Research (Rudman & Killianski, 2000) states that this may be due to the belief that women's caring nature will be beneficial when the company needs taking care of. This finding is in sharp contrast with the Role Congruity theory, as this theory states that it is this same caring nature of women that stands in their way of fulfilling the male leader-role. This phenomenon of women being appointed as leaders in times of company crisis has been called 'the glass cliff' (Ryan & Haslam, 2005). Although the existence of this 'glass cliff' might appear as an opportunity for women to emerge into the highest leadership roles, this doesn't always appear to be the case. In times of crisis it is especially difficult for any leader to fulfill their leader-role regardless of their gender. This probable failing of women as a leader in times of crisis may fuel the negative stereotypes already held of women leaders, leading to them attracting unfair criticism of their
performance. Ryan, Haslam, Hershby, and Bongiorno (2011) investigated gender and managerial stereotypes in the context of successful and unsuccessful companies. The first study demonstrated 'think manager- think male' (TMTM) associations of the participants with descriptions of managers of successful companies, and demonstrated 'think manager- think female' (TMTF) associations for managers of unsuccessful companies. The second study looked at the prescriptive nature (the expectations of how people should act) of these
stereotypes, and didn't find TMTM associations for ideal managers of successful companies, but did find ideal managers of unsuccessful companies to be associated with TMTF
stereotypes. The third study demonstrated that women's characteristics are more highly valued than those of men in times of company crisis, because women are viewed as good people managers (higher emotional sensitivity, better interpersonal skills, and more likely to take responsibility for company failure), and not because they are expected to improve company performance. Ryan et al. (2011) provide support for 'the glass cliff', and demonstrate that it is
women's feminine nature that contributes to why women are more likely to be appointed to leadership positions in times of poor company performance.
'The glass cliff' demonstrates how and why some women are appointed to leadership positions, but doesn't consider the potential consequences of 'the glass cliff' on the post-promotion experience of women. According to earlier research (Kanter,1977; Thompson & Sekaquaptewa, 2002), women will be given less opportunity to display their leadership capabilities compared to men, which consequently leads to significantly shorter tenures for women leaders. Furthermore, women CEOs of failing companies will then be more likely to be replaced by a man, who will be seen as a new leader selected to 'save' the company from poor leadership. This 'saving' of the company by a male leader is termed 'the saviour effect' (Cook & Glass, 2014). If this effect is supported, the woman would be seen as failing as a leader and would therefore fuel the prejudice and stereotypes already held against women in these positions. Cook and Glass (2013) examined the leadership tenure of women CEOs. This was investigated using a dataset of all CEO transitions in Fortune 500 companies over a period of 15-years. The results demonstrated that women CEOs endured shorter tenures than men did, providing women with less time to prove their leadership qualities. Furthermore, the findings showed that when the company's performance dropped further during the tenure of a female CEO, these women were likely to be replaced by men. This study demonstrates 'the saviour effect' to be another barrier women may face in the workplace.
In conclusion, prejudice against women has been found to be an explanation for their underrepresentation in top-leadership positions. First, it was demonstrated that prejudice against women is apparent in hiring procedures, performance evaluations, and promotability assessments. Furthermore, biases were found to be expressed through higher promotion criteria for women and differential allocation of challenging tasks. Reasons behind the bias against women in leadership positions stem from a perceived incongruity between the female
gender-role and the dominant masculine leader-role, and heightened expectations of family-work conflict for women, especially for mothers. Second, 'the glass cliff' was found to be a new barrier for the few women that are able to break through 'the glass ceiling', fueling the negative stereotypes already held of women in these top-positions. Finally, the existence of 'the saviour effect' was supported, demonstrating yet another barrier for women beyond that of 'the glass ceiling' and 'the glass cliff'. Overall, this evidence supports the Role Congruity Theory as the female gender-role is viewed as incongruent with the dominant masculine leader-role. Therefore, women are viewed as not being able to fulfill the agentic qualities perceived to be needed in order to perform well in leadership positions. Moreover, in situations where the incongruence between the gender-role and leader-role is emphasized, such as with motherhood and leadership, the prejudice is most extreme. However, this is only one side of the issue. Now the external perspective has been examined, it is important to investigate how much internal factors can explain the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. The next paragraph will investigate this.
Gender Differences Explain the Underrepresentation of Women in Top-Leadership
Positions
The previous section demonstrated that external factors, such as prejudice against women, is an important explanation of their underrepresentation in top-leadership positions. However, one cannot draw conclusions about this issue without first examining other possible explanations for this underrepresentation. This paragraph will investigate whether gender differences (internal factors) explain the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. The Evolutionary Perspective (Van Vugt et al., 2008) states that it is due to
evolution that there is still male dominance in leadership. Men had the physical advantage for survival and dominance over women, and consequently could more easily attain higher social
status within a group. This social status was more easily gained by men because of their ability to attract more partners and therefore have more children, consequently leading to a greater propagation of their genes. Biologically, women's propagation is limited to one pregnancy at a time and then to the raising of that child. This lowered their social status within the group due to the lower propagation of their genes. This paragraph investigates whether this historic gender difference has left men with a greater drive for power and social status compared to women, and whether this has lead to women being less likely to aim for these high status positions that should be filled equally by women. Furthermore, the
Preference Theory (Hakim, 2000) takes an even more extreme perspective on the issue and states that societal pressures are of no influence and women have complete freedom and the same opportunities as men, meaning that women would then purposely be choosing non-leadership positions. In order to examine the role of internal factors in the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions, studies about self-views will initially be examined. Self-views entail how someone evaluates them self; their abilities, achievements, and confidence, in a positive or negative manner (Lips, 2004). Research (Brown, 1998) has strongly supported that self-views have a large impact on vocational decisions, and that these decisions subsequently influence choices with regard to attaining leadership positions. Secondly, it will be investigated whether indeed these self-views and beliefs translate into gender differences in behaviour. Finally, gender differences in family-work conflict and choices will be examined.
Lips (2004) conducted two survey studies at two time-points in order to investigate gender divergence in the current- and possible academic self-views of students. The current self-views of the students entailed how they evaluated themselves with regard to their academic abilities in that moment in time. The future possible self-views entailed how they perceived their future possibilities in their academic career. The results from the first study
demonstrated that women reported more ability for themselves in the arts, communication, and social sciences; whereas men reported more ability for themselves in science,
mathematics, technology, and business. These gender differences were perceived to be greater in future possible selves than the current selves. The second study demonstrated that after their transition to university, women endorsed even fewer possibilities for themselves in masculine-stereotyped academic domains linked to powerful careers. Lips (2004)
demonstrated that young women may be actively narrowing the opportunities for their futures by shying away from these masculine-stereotyped academic domains. This may contribute to the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions, as women are less likely to see possibilities for themselves in these domains, and are therefore less likely to get in touch with subsequent masculine-stereotyped leadership positions within these domains. Killeen, Lopez-Zafra, and Eagly (2006) take a step beyond academic self-views and examine gender
differences in envisioning oneself as a leader. They investigated the aspirations for leadership of male and female students. In their study the participants were to envision themselves in a top-leadership position in a feminine-imaged industry or a masculine-imaged industry. The results demonstrated that the male and female participants perceived these leadership-roles as equally positive, however women perceived them to be less achievable than men did.
These two studies looked at overall gender differences in academic and leadership beliefs, in which women seem to close off masculine academic and career domains and believe leadership roles to be less achievable. Brown and Diekman (2010) examined a more specific belief, gender differences in possible selves with regard to family and career. Possible selves stand for individuals' ideas of what they might become, who and what they would like to become, and what they may be afraid of becoming (Brown & Diekman, 2010). They are important because they can function as templates for future behaviour (approach or avoid a possible self) (Markus & Nurius, 1986). It may be that beliefs regarding what is thought to be
more important or achievable in future possible selves (family or work) can underlie the beliefs of leadership positions being less achievable for women and more so for men, or why women would be less likely to want to pursue a leadership position. In their first study, Brown and Diekman (2010) demonstrated that gender differences in possible selves in the distant future (10-15 years) were greater than in the near future (1 year). Their second study showed that the possible selves of men in the distant future oriented significantly more towards career, and that the possible selves of women in the distant future oriented significantly more towards family. This demonstrates that women place more emphasis on family than career for in the distant future.
From these articles, it can be surmised that women are less likely to envision and believe that they could execute leadership positions. This is due to beliefs that these roles are less achievable for them, and that their future possible selves are more oriented towards family than career. However, do these beliefs translate into behaviour? Research (Brown, 1998) has suggested that self-views are important for understanding many behavioural choices. Fox and Lawless (2004) investigated thisfurther by examining the initial decision of women to run for office, based on data from their Citizen Political Ambition study. With this data they examined the processes by which men and women emerged as candidates for the public office. The data demonstrated that women who shared the same professional
credentials and personal characteristics as men expressed a significantly lower amount of political ambition to hold elective office. The authors suggest that it is women's view of them self as being less qualified to run for office, that has lead to their underrepresentation in political institutions. This article demonstrates the translation of women's self-views of not being qualified for a male dominated political environment, into the behavioural decision of not running for office. Besides this translation of differential beliefs into differential
behaviour, are there other gender differences that can explain why women are less likely to
enter competitive jobs such as those of running for office, CEO positions, upper-level management?As earlier research (Denmark, Nielson, & Scholl, in press.) has demonstrated competitiveness to be an important trait associated with the dominant masculine-leader role, a gender difference in competitiveness may explain why fewer women compete for leadership positions. Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) explored whether men and women, on a leveled playing field, may still differ in their selection into competitive environments. This was experimentally tested by having men and women perform a task in a non-competitive condition and a competitive tournament condition. The results demonstrated no gender differences in performance in either of these conditions, however there was a substantial gender difference found when the participants were allowed to choose the condition they wanted to apply to their next performance. The results showed that twice as many men as women chose the competitive tournament condition over the non-competitive one. This demonstrates women to be less willing to enter competitive environments and may reflect women to be less competitive than men, possibly explaining why women are less likely to compete for a leadership position.
Besides competitiveness, in what other ways may men and women differ in
behavioural work aspects? The article by De Pater et al. (2010) in paragraph one, examined whether women were less likely to be allocated challenging tasks. However, according to the two previous articles examining differences in behavioural traits between men and women, it could be argued that women would be less likely to choose and or want these tasks due to gender differences in self-views and competitiveness. De Pater, Van Vianen, Fischer, and Van Ginkel (2009) examined possible gender differences in the choice to perform challenging tasks, the actual performance of these tasks, and the impact the challenging task experiences has on supervisor's evaluations of the individuals' promotability potential. This was tested in two studies. The first study examined the actual choice to perform challenging tasks over
challenging tasks. The second study was a survey study in which the authors measured the degree to which the participants' experienced challenging job components, and subsequently the participants supervisors evaluated the participants promotability potential. The results demonstrated that women chose to perform significantly fewer challenging job tasks than men, leading to women having fewer challenging job experiences, and consequently leading to weaker evaluations of promotability by their supervisors. Overall, this shows that when women have the choice, they are less likely to choose challenging tasks, which are crucial for promotability to higher organizational (leadership) position. This may contribute to women being underrepresented in leadership positions.
The studies discussed have demonstrated that women do differ from men in their self-beliefs with regard to career and leadership, and that these differences translate into
differences in behaviour, hindering womens' chances of attaining leadership positions.A last important area to investigate for gender differences is that of family-work balance. The article by Hoobler et al. (2009) in paragraph one, demonstrated that employers were biased against promoting women due to a greater expectation of their family-work conflict. Furthermore, the article by Brown and Diekman (2010) stated that women's distant possible selves oriented more towards family than career, compared to those of men. Is it really the case that women experience more family-work conflict and tend to choose family over work, or is this a misperception? Scholars (e.g. Hakim, 1996) would state that the majority of women do actively choose their family role above their working role, and that this is an explanation for women’s lower career achievements and earnings. Earlier studies (Crosby, 1987; Kaltrieder, 1997; Moen, Chesley, & Shore, 1998) have explored the conflicts women have with juggling the responsibilities of full-time employment and family, reporting that many women’s careers have been interrupted by the choice to focus time and attention on the care of their children, thus hindering their chances at attaining top-leadership positions (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987).
Marksand Houston (2002) conducted a survey study in order to investigate the factors that shaped the plans of high-achieving young women about their further education, career
development, having children and combining work and motherhood. The results demonstrated that these women's further education and career plans were negatively influenced by their anticipated role as a mother, and also their perceived pressure of society to stop work to care for their children. Moreover, despite their strong intentions to gain further educational
qualifications and a career, they felt that the perceived unacceptability of combining this with motherhood caused the women to become more uncertain when they formed these plans. Mark and Houston (2002) show that young women may be willing to plan to pursue their career and thereby increase their chances of attaining leadership positions, however their career plans appear to be negatively influenced by the societal pressure and perceived unacceptability of the combination of career and motherhood.
Besides looking at career plans, it is also important to study men and women in these career and family situations, as this would clarify whether the greater expected family-work conflict for women is justified. Emslie and Hunt (2009) examined this in a qualitative interview study. The results demonstrated that almost all the interviewed women had experienced difficulties in combining work and family life, of which most of these accounts were related to the very recent past and present. For women, areas of conflict in family life extended across having adult children at home, ageing parents, and being a good wife. For men, family-work conflict was only noted in the past when having young children at home. In conclusion, although having children at home caused family-work conflict for both men and women, these difficulties seemed to have lasted longer and taken on more complex forms for women than for men.
From the above, it can be concluded that gender differences are an explanation for the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. Firstly, it was demonstrated that
women were less likely to view themselves as leaders than men, and in due course this was shown to affect their ambitions of fulfilling these roles. Secondly, women were shown to be less competitive and less likely than men to choose challenging tasks when they had the choice. Finally, it was found that the anticipated conflict between work and mothering decreased the certainty young women had about their future career plans, and that women were more likely to experience greater and longer family-work conflict than men. These results are in support of the predictions of the Evolutionary Perspective, as women do seem to differ from men in their beliefs, behaviours and partly their priorities in life. Women seem to behave in ways that confirm the statement that they are less driven than men to gain social status through power and income. The Preference Theory has been partly supported, as these results demonstrate that there are natural differences between men and women, however societal pressure does seem to be of influence on work-life choices.
Discussion & Conclusion
By examining the relative roles of internal and external factors, this paper attempted to reveal the cause of the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions. Initially, prejudice against women in leadership positions, and possible factors influencing this prejudice, were investigated (external). Secondly, it was examined whether internal factors were the cause of this underrepresentation of women. It was investigated whether women believe, behave, and prioritize differently to men with respect to employment. Overall, it can be concluded that the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions is a result of an interplay of prejudice against women and gender differences. The studies demonstrated prejudice against women in leadership positions to be a huge barrier in their career
advancement. Moreover, this prejudice against women is fueled by the 'glass cliff' and the 'saviour effect'. Women also appear to differ from men in their self-beliefs, behaviours and
priorities with regard to leadership positions, further hindering their career advancement. This review has both theoretical and practical implication. Firstly, theoretical support for the Role Congruity Theory is provided, as the findings indicate that women are still viewed as less likely to fulfill the dominant masculine leadership-role. This is caused by a perceived incongruity between the female gender-role and the male leader-role, leading to prejudice against women aiming for, and in, leadership positions. Secondly, the Evolutionary Perspective is also supported, as women appear to differ from men in the sense that women view themselves as less able, and appear to be less driven than men to gain social status through power and income. In addition, despite women's intentions to combine work and family, they still experience societal pressure to choose family over work. This contradicts the absolute freedom of choice for women posited by the Preference Theory. As both the Role Congruity Theory and the Evolutionary perspective are supported, the theoretical implications are that it is necessary to create one comprehensive theory encompassing both the internal and external elements of these theories. This will create a clearer overview of the factors
influencing this underrepresentation.
A practical implication of this review, is that the still prevailing prejudice against women needs to be eliminated, as this prejudice is unfair and should not stand in the way of the career advancement of women who wish to attain a top-leadership position. In order to investigate how to reduce the perceived incongruity between the female gender-role and male leader-role, the career advancement strategies of successful women executives should be examined. Despite the significant obstacles this paper demonstrates for women aiming to attain top-leadership positions, a number of women have managed to overcome them. Even though many of these women were appointed to these positions in times of crisis, supporting 'the glass cliff effect', this is not true of all. Although a few earlier studies (e.g. Ragins, Townsend, & Mattis, 1998; Lyness & Thompson, 2000) have researched the advancement
strategies of successful women executives, it is important that we learn more about these strategies in order to overcome the perceived gender incongruity with leader requirements. If we can gain knowledge about how these women overcame these barriers, this knowledge can be used to educate women (e.g. leadership training) and possibly employers on how to overcome this prejudice. This may subsequently contribute to a more efficient use of female human talent resources and promote economic prosperity.
A limitation of this review is whether the gender differences found are uncontaminated explanatory factors in the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions, or
whether these are a product of self-fulfilling bias. Are these gender differences ingrained or intaught? Studies (Van Vugt et al., 2008) examining the nature of gender differences have shown differences in, for example competitiveness, to have arisen because of differences in costs of reproduction; with competitive males attempting to mate at every opportunity, and females being inherently choosy reserving their favours for the strongest suitor. Other research (e.g. Buss, 2005) examining the nature/nurture debate on gender differences in children (before nurture has full impact) has also delivered support for inherent preferences among children and throughout different cultures. Furthermore, studies (e.g. Harris, 1995) have also identified cultural differences, suggesting that nurture has an effect as well. However, science today does not have the capability to completely separate what are ingrained or intaught gender differences, and therefore this review can only provide indications for conclusions on the role of gender differences in the underrepresentation of women in top-leadership positions.
Besides this limitation, this review contributes significantly to the literature on the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions. Earlier research only focused on external or internal factors as causes of this underrepresentation. This review examines these studies together and provides a comprehensive review of this literature, providing the insight
that it is a combination of these internal and external factors that are contributing to this underrepresentation of women. Furthermore, this paper has provided specific future directions for research on this topic.
Overall, even though gender differences explain part of the underrepresentation of women, and prejudice is only part of the problem, currently it is only the prejudice against women in leadership positions that can be realistically tackled. On an optimistic note, the gender gap in economic participation is already closing, and with the contributions of this review and future research, worldwide gender equality in economic participation is hopefully achievable.
References
Ashby, J.S., Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Legal work and the glass cliff: Evidence that women are preferentially selected to lead problematic cases. Journal of Women
and the Law, 13, 775–794.
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). "Women don’t ask”. Princeton University Press: New Jersey.
Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, E. R., & Diekman, A. B. (2010). What will I be? Exploring gender differences in near and distant possible selves. Sex Roles, 63, 568–579.
Bryson, V. (1992). Feminist political theory. London: Macmillan.
Buss, D. M. (2005). Handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Catalyst (2011). Women CEOs and heads of the financial post 500. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/publication/322/women-ceos-of-thefortune-1000.
Crosby, F. J. (1987). Spouse, parent, worker: On gender and multiple roles. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2014). Women and top leadership positions: Towards an institutional analysis. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(1), 91-103.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2013). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1080–1089. Davies, J., & Easterby-Smith, M. (1984). Learning and developing from managerial work experiences. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 169–183.
De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Bechtoldt, M. N. (2010). Gender differences in job challenge: A matter of task allocation. Gender, Work, & Organization, 17(4), 433-453. De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Klehe, U. (2009). Employees challenging job experiences and supervisors' evaluations of promotability. Personnel
Psychology, 62(2), 297–325.
De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Fischer, A. H., & Van Ginkel, W. P. (2009).
Challenging experiences: Gender differences in task choice. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 24(1), 4-28.
Denmark, F. L., Nielson, K. A., & Scholl, K. (in press). Life in the United States of America. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), International handbook of gender roles. Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press.
Eagly, A. H. (2004). Few women at the top: How role incongruity produces prejudice and the
glass ceiling. In D. Van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Identity, leadership, and power (pp. 79–93). London: Sage.
Eagly, A. H. (in press). Prejudice: Toward a more inclusive understanding. In A. H. Eagly, R. M. Baron, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), The social psychology of group identity and social
conflict: Theory, application, and practice. Washington, DC: APA Books.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598.
Emslie, C., & Hunt, K. (2009). ‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’? A qualitative study of gender and work–life balance among men and women in mid-life. Gender, Work and
Organization, 16(1), 151-172.
Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business: Making full use of the nation’s
human capital: The environmental scan: A fact finding report of the Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Fernandes, E., & Cabral‐Cardoso, C. (2003). Gender asymmetries and the manager
stereotype among management students. Women in Management Review, 18(1/2), 77- 87.
Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2004). Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. American Journal of Political Science, 2, 264-280.
Garcia-Retamero, R., & López-Zafra, E. (2006). Prejudice against women in male-congenial environments: perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership. Sex Roles, 55, 51- 61.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10, 76–88.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp. 391–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hakim, C. (2002). Lifestyle preferences as determinants of women's differentiated labor market careers. Work and Occupations, 29(4), 428-459.
Hakim, C. (2006). Women, career and work-life preferences. British Journal of Guidance &
Counseling, 34(3), 279-294.
Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102(3), 458-489.
Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., Beckhouce, Y., & Zahidi, S. (2012). The Global Gender Gap
Report 2012. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189–198. Hesse-Biber, S., & Carter, G. (2005). Working women in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoobler, J. M. (2007). On-site or out-of-sight? Family friendly childcare provisions and the status of working mothers. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, 372–380.
Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. (2009). Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict and women's promotability: Glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management
Journal, 52(5), 939–957.
Jacobs, J. A. (1999). The sex segregation of occupations: Prospects for the 21st century. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 125–144). London: Sage.
Kaltrieder, N. B. (1997). Dilemmas of a double life: Women balancing careers and
relationships. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Killeen, L. A., Lopez-Zafra, E., & Eagly, A. H. (2006). Envisioning oneself as a leader: Comparisons of women and men in Spain and the United States. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 30, 312-322.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. Basic Books: New York. Lips, H. M. (2004).The gender gap in possible selves: Divergence of academic self-views among high school and university students. Sex Roles, 50, 357–37.
Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations
and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(4), 777–785.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male
executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86–101. Marks, G., & Houston, D. M. (2002).The determinants of young women’s intentions about education, career development and family life. Journal of Education and Work, 15(3), 321- 336.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. The American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. Moen, P., Chesley, N., & Shore, R. P. (1998). Taking on technology: Two-earner families
and the double-edged sword (Cornell Employment and Family Careers Institute
Working Paper No. 98-09). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University College of Human Ecology, Bronfenbrenner Life Course Center.
Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1987). Breaking the glass ceiling: Can
women reach the top of America’s largest corporations? Reading, MA: Addison
Wesley.
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007). Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, 122(3), 1067- 1101.
Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers’ developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 46–67. Philips, A. (2004). Defending equality of outcome. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12, 1-19. Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. (1998). Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management
Executive, 12(1), 28–42.
Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1315-1328.
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over
represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of Management, 16, 81-
90.
Thompson, M., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2002). When being different is detrimental: solo status and the performance of women and racial minorities. Analyses of Social Issues and
Public Policy 2(1), 183–203.
Van Vugt, M., Johnson, D. D. P., Kaiser, R. B., & O’Gorman, R. (2008). Evolution and the
social psychology of leadership: The mis-match hypothesis. In C. Hoyt, D. Forsyth, &
A. Goethals (Eds.), Social psychology and leadership. New York: Praeger Perspectives.
Whitmarsh, L., Brown, D., Cooper, J., Hawkins-Rodgers, Y., & Wentworth, D. K. (2007). Choices and challenges: A qualitative exploration of professional women's career patterns. The Career Development Quarterly, 55(3), 225–236.
