The influence of leaders’ LGBT status on leader prototypicality and
effectiveness perceptions: the moderating role of leader and follower
gender.
Name student: Jorien van der Burg Student number: 10384693
Submission date: 23-06-2017 Version: Final version
Master: MSc. in Business Administration Track: Leadership & Management Thesis supervisor: Dr. C. Buengeler
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Jorien van der Burg, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Table of contents
Abstract……….. 5
1. Introduction……….... 6
2. Conceptual background and hypotheses……….... 8
2.1 Sexual orientation and gender identity………... 8
2.2 LGBT status of leader and perceptions of leader effectiveness………. 10
2.3 The mediating effect of leader prototypicality……….... 11
2.4 The moderating effect of leader gender……….. 13
2.5 The moderating effect of leader-follower gender similarity………... 14
3. Method………... 16 3.1 Procedure……… 16 3.2 Sample……….... 17 3.3 Measures………. 18 3.3.1 Leader LGBT status……….. 18 3.3.2 Leader prototypicality………... 19
3.3.3 Leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity………... 19
3.3.4 Perceived leader effectiveness……….. 20
3.3.5 Control variables………... ……... 20
4. Results……….... 20
4.1 Dummy’s, frequencies, and counter indicative items………. 20
4.2 Normality……… 21
4.3 Reliability……… 21
4.4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations………. 21
4.5 Hypothesis testing………... 22
4.5.1 Hypothesis testing for total effect………. 22
4.5.2 Hypothesis testing for interaction effect………... 23
4.5.3 Hypothesis testing for moderated mediation……… 26
5.6 Additional analyses………... 26
5.6.1 Interaction effect………... 27
5.6.2 The effect of LGBT leaders’ openness towards followers on perceptions of leader effectiveness……….. 27
5. Discussion……….. 28
5.2 Theoretical and practical implications……….. 32
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for future research………... 33
5.3.1 Generalizability ……….... 34
5.3.2 The term “LGBT”………. 35
5.3.3 Cross-sectional study design………. 35
5.3.4 Social desirability and common-method bias………... 36
5.3.5 Careless responding……….. 36
6. Conclusion………. 37
References……….. 39
Appendix A - Informed consent (English)... 46
Appendix B - Leader questionnaire (English)... 48
Appendix C - Follower questionnaire (English)... 59
Appendix D - Informed consent (Dutch)... 72
Appendix E - Leader questionnaire (Dutch)... 74
Appendix F - Follower questionnaire (Dutch)... 86
Appendix G - Informed consent (German)... 100
Appendix H - Leader questionnaire (German)... 102
Appendix I - Follower questionnaire (German)... 114
Appendix J - Informed consent (Norwegian)... 128
Appendix K - Leader questionnaire (Norwegian)... 130
Appendix L - Follower questionnaire (Norwegian)... 141
Appendix M - Additional hierarchical regression results……….. 154
Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals are increasingly being granted leadership positions. However, discrimination towards this group of employees is common, which can have severe consequences for organizations because of the central positions leaders hold in the groups they are leading. Specifically, the ability of leaders to be effective depends on the perceptions followers have of their leader’s effectiveness, as this sets the foundation for leadership endorsement and openness of followers to leaders’ influence. Yet, despite the importance of followers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness, the effect of leaders’ LGBT status on these perceptions has received limited attention in research. Therefore, this study investigated the influence of leaders’ LGBT status on effectiveness perceptions by followers. In addition, it examined whether this relationship was mediated by the degree to which the leader fitted with the implicit leadership theories of followers (i.e., perceived leader prototypicality). Finally, this study examined whether these relationships differed for subgroups of LGBT leaders, by examining whether leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity moderated the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and leader prototypicality. To test for these relationships, online questionnaires were administered to both LGBT leaders and non-LGBT leaders and their followers in different contexts. Examining 88 leader-follower dyads, I showed that neither of these relationships were found, suggesting that LGBT leaders are not perceived as less leader prototypical and less effective leaders as compared to non-LGBT leaders. Moreover, these results imply that leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity do not moderate the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and leader prototypicality.
1. Introduction
According to the U.S. National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, 7 percent of the people in the US are to some degree attracted to the same gender and 2 percent are either primarily or exclusively same-sex oriented (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Additionally, estimations of the number people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (hereafter: LGBT) made in other studies vary between 3 and 12 percent in the US (Day, Greene & Wooten, 2008) and 5 and 7 percent in the UK (Colgan, Creegan, McKearney & Wright, 2007). As a significant proportion of the LGBT people conceal their sexual identity partly or fully (Anteby & Anderson, 2014; Ozeren, 2014), the previously stated percentages are conservative estimates. Hence, it can be concluded that the number of LGBT individuals in the population is considerable, and that LGBT employees constitute one of the largest minority groups in the workplace (Ozeren, 2014).
With the growing attention towards inclusion and diversity in the workplace, LGBT individuals are increasingly being positioned in formal leadership positions by organizations. The LGBT identity of these leaders is likely to affect how they enact leadership roles and how the group being led responds to them (Fassinger, Shullman & Stevenson, 2010). For example, research on LGBT leaders suggests that these leaders have better communication skills, creative problem solving skills, and adaptability skills as compared to non-LGBT leaders (Snyder, 2006). Moreover, these leaders are more likely to question conventional wisdom, accomplish tasks in different ways, and be creative in setting social rules (Brown, 1989). Finally, employees of LGBT leaders report higher levels of employee engagement, loyalty towards employer, job satisfaction, workplace morale, and individual productivity than employees of non-LGBT leaders (Snyder, 2006).
In spite of the advantages that LGBT leaders could bring to organizations, LGBT individuals may experience discrimination and bias in obtaining and maintaining leadership roles (Fassinger, 2008; Fassinger et al., 2010), which has important consequences for organizations. First, the performance of organizations depends largely on leaders (Giessner, Van Knippenberg & Sleebos, 2009), and for companies to employ the best leaders all qualified candidates should be considered, regardless of sexual identity (Day, Greene & Wooten, 2008). Second, for organizations to fully capture the aforementioned advantages of LGBT leaders, LGBT leaders need to be accepted in the workplace (Stock & Özbek-Potthoff, 2014). The ability of leaders to be effective depends largely on how followers perceive them, as leaders who are perceived as more effective hold more influence. Specifically, perceptions
of leader effectiveness set the foundation for leadership endorsement and openness of followers to their leader’s influence (Lord & Maher, 1991). Whether followers perceive their leader as effective leaders, is influenced by their implicit leadership theories and the extent to which they perceive their leader to be a prototypical leader (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Since being non-LGBT is the expected norm in the workplace (Brewster, Velez, Mennicke & Tebbe, 2014; Dietert & Dentice, 2009; Ozeren, 2014), LGBT leaders may be perceived as less prototypical than non-LGBT leaders, which in turn leads to them being perceived as less effective leaders (Ensari & Murphy, 2003).
Interestingly, however, almost no research has been done regarding LGBT leaders in the workplace (Fassinger et al, 2010), in spite of the potential powerful implications of followers’ perceptions regarding the effectiveness of LGBT leaders. In fact, organizational researchers have paid limited attention to LGBT employees in general, and the little evidence that is available is often scattered (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Therefore, the present study focuses on the relationship between LGBT status of leaders and perceptions of leader effectiveness, and whether leader prototypicality explains this relationship. Moreover, I look at the role of leaders’ gender and leader-follower gender similarity in the relationship between LGBT status of leaders and leader prototypicality, since prototypical leaders are often described in masculine terms (Heilman, 2001; Ryan, Haslam, Hersby & Bongiorno, 2011) and individuals similar in gender tend to rate each other more favorably (Huang & Iun, 2006).
Therefore, the first contribution of this study to the existing literature is made by researching whether LGBT leaders are indeed being disadvantaged in terms of leader effectiveness perceptions, and what mechanisms generate these perceptions. Second, this study looks at multiple group memberships of LGBT leaders by studying the role of leader gender as well. This is suggested by Ragins, Cornwell and Miller (2003), since sexual identity is mostly being explored in isolation of gender and other group memberships. Moreover, this implies that both a collective identity perspective and social distinctiveness perspective as discussed by Anteby and Anderson (2014) are being taken here. Thereby the suggestion of Anteby and Anderson (2014) to explore multiple perspectives is taken into account as well. Third, by asking respondents in this study for their sexual identity, biological sex, and gender identity, transgender individuals are also being included, as transgender individuals are often underrepresented in research about sexual minorities (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Finally, the male-female and gay-straight dichotomy is being avoided by including several answering options for questions regarding sexual orientation and gender.
Hereby, this study takes the suggestion of Ragins and Cornwell (2001) into account to pay attention to heterosexist biases in research regarding sexual identity.
The results of this study will also be of practical relevance. First, it can help stimulate awareness in organizations concerning the influence LGBT status can have for managers. When LGBT leaders are perceived to be less effective as a consequence of their LGBT status, this will lead to them having less influence (Lord & Maher, 1991). In turn, these leaders will not be able reach their maximum potential, which will undermine their ability to contribute to organizational performance (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Second, by studying the effectiveness ratings of LGBT leaders, this study could increase understanding about one of the potential causes why LGBT individuals face career barriers and workplace discrimination related to their LGBT status (Lloren & Parini, 2016). As research has highlighted, LGBT employees are more likely to encounter inequality in the hiring process (Drydakis, 2011), difficult workplace climates, isolation, inequitable policies and benefits (Githens & Aragon, 2009), and being unfairly fired from their jobs (Pichler, Varma & Bruce, 2010) as compared to non-LGBT employees.
2. Conceptual background and hypotheses
In this chapter, a brief overview will be given of the relevant literature on sexual identity, leader effectiveness, leader prototypicality, and gender. Based on this, the hypotheses will be formulated. Finally, the chapter ends by graphically illustrating the research model.
2.1 Sexual orientation and gender identity
The earliest research done on same-sex orientation dates back to the 1860s, when same-sex oriented individuals were seen as being developed physically abnormal or having a psychiatric condition (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). This led to people in general responding with anger, disgust, and hatred towards these individuals (Hooker, 1957). Therefore, researchers in that time period were mainly concerned with how to exclude these “abnormal” individuals from “normal” organizations (Davids, Joelson & McArthur, 1956; Reitzell, 1949). As same-sex oriented individuals were seen as damaged and abnormal individuals, they were seen as unable to perform good enough to form part of corporate life (Anteby & Anderson, 2014).
However, the results of a study done by Hooker in 1957 suggested that the link between same-sex orientation and mental illness was incorrect. Well-adjusted “abnormal” individuals who appeared as average, heterosexual individuals on the surface, were found to be part of “normal” organizations and scored the same in terms of psychological health as heterosexual individuals (Hooker, 1957). This led to researchers taking on the deviant social role perspective, which emphasized the role of the social context and viewed same-sex oriented individuals as suffering from the social norms of the majority and unfair mistreatment (Anteby & Anderson, 2014).
The visibility of same-sex oriented individuals and other sexual minorities, such as transgender individuals, increased significantly with the start of the gay rights movement during the 1970s, thereby decreasing the taboo around the topic (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Transgender individuals are those individuals whose biological sex is different than their gender identity (Budge, Tebbe & Howard, 2010). Often, transgender individuals cannot identify with the traditional dichotomous construction of gender and identify themselves somewhere along the male-female continuum. Therefore, transgender serves as an umbrella term that captures a range of gender identities that can be placed along the male-female continuum (Dietert & Dentice, 2009). The gay movement eventually led to researchers taking on the collective identity perspective, which is still present in today’s research. Within this perspective sexual minorities are viewed as “members of a disadvantaged minority group, with a shared collective identity” (Anteby & Anderson, 2014, p. 11). A collective identity is an aspect of the self-concept derived from membership in larger, more impersonal social categories or collectives (Brewer & Gardner, 1996).
The implications for thinking of sexual minorities as a collective identity are that LGBT identities are viewed as intrinsic to the self, meaning that LGBT individuals cannot take their LGBT identity on or off at any point in time. Hereby the collective identity perspective assumes that the LGBT identity influences all aspects of an individual’s life. This way of thinking opened up new directions for research, such as: increasing the visibility of sexual minorities in the workplace, discrimination at work, and creating social change (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). Here, I adopt a collective identity perspective to study followers’ perceptions of LGBT leaders’ effectiveness, with a focus on discrimination at work.
2.2 LGBT status of leader and perceptions of leader effectiveness
As mentioned in section 1, several researchers have found that LGBT leaders have certain advantages compared to non-LGBT leaders (Brown, 1989; Snyder, 2006). When organizations are able to take advantage of the distinctive qualities and abilities of LGBT leaders, an increase in performance follows (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). More specifically, an organization’s performance is to a large extent dependent on the actions of leaders, because of the central position they hold in groups (Giessner et al., 2009). However, to improve an organization’s performance, leaders need to be accepted by their followers (Stock & Özbek-Potthoff, 2014), as the power of leaders depends in part on how followers in the organization perceive them. In particular, how leaders are perceived in terms of effectiveness is important, because leaders who are perceived to be effective hold more influence than those leaders perceived to be less effective (Lord & Maher, 1991).
Since followers cannot accurately determine leaders’ actual effectiveness (Lord & Maher), the term ‘perceived leader effectiveness’ is used here. Humans have a limited capacity to process information, making it impossible to make rational attributional analyses. More specifically, individuals do not know all relevant information, existing time delays between causes and effects, and the complexity of events happening, which makes it difficult for them to link specific leader activities to specific performance outcomes. Total understanding of the large and complex systems that make up organizations is thus impossible, which results in simple attributional processes. Therefore, followers cannot accurately determine leaders’ actual effectiveness (Meindl, Ehrlich & Dukerich, 1985) and base leadership effectiveness estimations on perceptions (Lord & Maher, 1991).
Compared to majority members, minority members are more likely to receive negative performance ratings (Dubbelt, Rispens & Demerouti, 2016). Ilgen and Youtz (1986) suggest that an explanation for this could be that minorities internalize negative evaluations and stereotypes related to their minority identity, which can cause them to limit themselves and reject future opportunities out of fear for not succeeding (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986). Additionally, the expectation states theory by Berger, Cohen and Zelditch (1972) states that an explanation for the more negative performance of minorities compared to majorities could lie in individuals influencing the behavior of other individuals by forming expectations based on salient characteristics and the information connected to these characteristics. More specifically, individuals compare their expectations for two groups differing in a certain characteristic and assign an expectation advantage to the group for whom they hold higher
expectations. The group holding the higher expectation advantage is more likely to be evaluated positively and receive and accept opportunities as compared to the other group (Berger et al., 1972). In a group consisting of males and females, gender will serve as a salient characteristic, whereby males are typically seen as more competent leaders (Dippong & Kalkhof, 2015).
As mentioned previously, it is apparent that LGBT individuals experience discrimination in the workplace (Drydakis, 2011; Githens & Aragon, 2009; Lloren & Parini, 2016; Pichler et al., 2010). For example, the results of a study performed by Grant and colleagues (2011) among transgender individuals showed that 47 percent of the respondents indicated that they had either not been hired, fired, or not given a promotion because of their sexual identity. Here it should be noted that LGBT individuals carry concealable stigmas, meaning that their LGBT status is not readily apparent to other individuals (Tilcsik, Anteby & Knight, 2015). This could lead to individuals concealing their LGBT status being less likely to experience prejudices as compared to individuals disclosing their LGBT status (Anteby & Anderson, 2014).
Connecting the discrimination towards LGBT individuals to the expectation states theory (Berget et al, 1972) it can be expected that when LGBT status serves as a salient characteristic, non-LGBT leaders will hold an expectation advantage compared to LGBT leaders. This in turn can lead to followers perceiving non-LGBT leaders as more effective as compared to LGBT leaders. Therefore, the first hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 1: LGBT leaders are perceived as less effective by followers, as compared to non-LGBT leaders.
2.3 The mediating effect of leader prototypicality
In an attempt to understand the causal complexities that make up organizations, people implicitly hold models and theories. This produces a systematic bias in how complex organizational systems are understood, how relevant outcomes and events are explained, and what factors these are attributed to. More specifically, a bias here refers to people being inclined to think and interpret events in a certain way. These thoughts and interpretations can be either accurate or wrong compared to objective thoughts and interpretations (Meindl et al., 1985). When applying this to leadership, it means that followers hold certain assumptions and beliefs that influence their implicit theory regarding what typical leaders are like (DeRue &
Ashord, 2010). If there is a fit between followers’ implicit ideas about what constitutes a typical leader and what their leader is actually like, the leader is seen as prototypical (Ensari & Murphy, 2003). DeRue and Ashford (2010) extend the theory on implicit leadership and perceived prototypicality by adding that leader and follower identities are socially constructed by a process of claiming and granting. This holds that the better the fit between the implicit leadership theory of person X and the attributes and behaviors of person Y, the more likely it is that person X will assign the identity of leader to person Y.
However, qualified individuals belonging to minority groups, and more specifically sexual minorities, are often thought of as lacking the right skills for assuming leadership roles (Eagly & Chin, 2010) as heterosexuality is the expected norm in both society and the workplace (Ozeren, 2014). Moreover, the majority of people in society conform to the male-female binary by expecting that one’s biological gender also defines one’s gender identity, thus expecting that people in general are cisgender. Cisgender individuals are those individuals whose biological sex assigned at birth matches with their gender identity (Brewster et al., 2014). This way of thinking is reinforced by, for example, bathrooms and clothes being designed for either males or females (Dietert & Dentice, 2009). It is likely that these norms are reflected in the assumptions and beliefs of followers, thereby influencing their implicit theory regarding what typical leaders are like.
In turn, a review of published empirical research regarding leadership found a number of studies supporting that leader prototypicality influences perceptions of leader effectiveness (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, Cremer & Hogg, 2004). More specifically, being perceived as a prototypical leader is related to being evaluated more favorably and being perceived as more effective by followers (Ensari & Murphy, 2003), known as the leadership categorization theory (Gündemir, Homan, De Dreu & Van Vugt, 2014; Lord & Maher, 1991). Platow and Van Knippenberg (2001) studied in-group prototypicality, and their results also suggested that perceived leader effectiveness was greater for prototypical leaders as compared to non-prototypical leaders. Thus, expectations of followers regarding what a typical leader is like influences how leaders are being evaluated. A consequence of this is that it might be more difficult for minorities to assume and maintain leadership positions (Hogg, 2001).
Applying this to LGBT leaders specifically, it can be expected that followers implicitly think of typical leaders as being heterosexual and cisgender, since this is the norm in society. Therefore, LGBT leaders are expected to be perceived as less leader prototypical and consequently are expected to be evaluated less positively in terms of effectiveness as
compared to non-LGBT leaders. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: The negative relationship between LGBT status of the leader and perceived leader effectiveness is mediated by perceived leader prototypicality.
2.4 The moderating effect of leader gender
While viewing sexual minorities as sharing a cohesive identity helps to unite the research agenda of the collective identity perspective, it does leave out texture and particularities of different sexual minorities (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). By having subcategories based on another identity, such as gender, profession or ethnicity, meaningful differences of numerically large groups can be made visible (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). Therefore, a social distinctiveness view will be taken here, which allows for the possibility of distinctive sub-groups within the broader category of sexual minorities (Anteby & Anderson, 2014). As several studies have shown that gender interacts with sexual orientation and gender identity (Lloren & Parini, 2016; Pichler et al., 2010; Schilt & Wiswall, 2008), the broader category of LGBT leaders will be crosscut by gender as a second identity.
The traditional role division of males as income producers and females as caretakers have led to gender stereotypes, which hold that females are expected to behave communal and males are expected to behave agentic. More specifically, females should behave service-oriented, nurturing, friendly and passive in contrast to males, who should behave competitive, achievement-oriented and assertive. As a consequence of these stereotypes, males have a higher status in society than females and therefore hold more privileged positions (Dubbelt et al, 2016; Heilman, 2001), while females behaving in agentic manners associated with the male gender role can encounter negative reactions (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Prototypical leaders, and thus leaders perceived as effective, are mostly described in terms of agentic behaviors and masculine attributes. Therefore, typical effective leaders are most compatible with the male gender role (Heilman, 2001). This is in line with the results of a study performed by Ryan et al. (2011) in which respondents had to describe managers of successful companies. The results demonstrated that typical managers in successful companies are described in masculine terms, by both males and females, and that managers of unsuccessful companies were described in terms of femininity. This association of unsuccessful companies with femininity strengthens gender stereotypes and can make it seem legitimate to exclude females from leadership positions (Ryan et al., 2011).
Because of typical effective leaders being most compatible with the male gender role, it can be concluded that the female gender role deviates from the typical leader role (Heilman, 2001) and that female leaders therefore experience conflicting demands related to their gender. On the one hand, when they conform to their female gender role, they can fail to meet the requirements of their leader role. On the other hand, conforming to their leader role can result in them failing to meet the requirements of the female gender role (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001; Heilman, 2001).
Based on the aforementioned gender stereotypes, it can be expected that female leaders with differing sexual orientation and gender identity deviate more from the prototypical leader than male leaders with differing sexual orientation and gender identity do. Applying the expectation states theory (Berger et al., 1972), this suggests that males hold an expectation advantage compared to females, which leads to the expectation that female LGBT leaders are perceived as less leader prototypical compared to male LGBT leaders. This in turn is expected to lead to female LGBT leaders being perceived as less effective than male LGBT leaders, since less prototypical leaders are perceived to be less effective. Therefore, the third hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 3: The negative relationship between the LGBT status of a leader and perceived leader effectiveness via leader prototypicality is stronger when the leader is female as compared to male.
2.5 The moderating effect of leader-follower gender similarity
In contrast to the saying that opposites attract, individuals are drawn to similarity concerning readily observable attributes instead. This is based on the similarity-attraction theory developed by Byrne (1961). More specifically, this holds that leaders and followers who assume that they share common beliefs, values and attitudes because of being similar in terms of demographic attributes will emphasize each other’s positive attributes and engage in positive interactions (Tsui, Porter & Egan, 2002). By means of this they develop a positive social identity (Tsui et al., 2002). According to the social identity theory of Tajfel and Turner (1979), social identity can be defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1978, p. 63).
(Brewer & Gardner, 1996), it is for individuals’ own benefit to view their social group or in-group favorably (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). Therefore, demographically similar individuals view and treat each other more favorably as compared to individuals who are demographically dissimilar (Tsui et al., 2002), which leads them to rate each other more positively (Huang & Iun, 2006). The results of a study done by Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) support this by showing that leader-follower gender similarity, among other demographic characteristics, was related to higher perceptions of leaders’ effectiveness.
Additionally, the relational-demography theory of Tsui and O’Reilly (1989) concerns the degree to which members of dyads or groups are similar or different in terms of demographic characteristics. It proposes that similarity in demographic characteristics between a leader and a follower provides them additional information about their behaviors and attitudes (Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989), because individuals tend to assume that when they share similarities regarding demographic characteristics they will also share common beliefs, values and attitudes (Huang & Iun, 2006). As gender is one of the most salient demographic characteristics and similarity in it affects dyad and group functioning (Kim & Kim, 2011), the focus here is on leader-follower gender similarity. Gender is a surface-level, and thus readily observable, demographic characteristic. Here, gender similarity denotes that leader and follower both have the same gender.
As mentioned previously, prototypical leaders are those leaders who fit the implicit ideas of followers about what constitutes a typical leader (Ensari & Murphi). When connecting this to the similarity-attraction theory and relational demography theory, it can be expected that followers are more inclined to assume that they share common beliefs, values, and attitudes with their leader in the case of leader-follower gender similarity, as compared to leader-follower gender dissimilarity. This in turn will emphasize the leader’s positive attributes and lead to followers perceiving their leader as a more typical leader. Additionally, it is for followers own benefit to view their group favorably (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990), which suggest that a female leader will be seen as more prototypical when the follower is female as compared to male, and a male leader will be seen as more prototypical when the follower is male as compared to female. Eventually this will increase the leader’s rating and thus lead to increased leader effectiveness perceptions by the follower. Therefore, the third hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 4: The negative relationship between the LGBT status of a leader and perceived leader effectiveness via leader prototypicality is weaker when the leader and follower share gender, as compared to when they differ in gender.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
3. Method
In this chapter, the empirical part of the study will be presented. First, the procedure for collecting data will described, next the sample and instruments used for operationalizing the constructs will be described.
3.1 Procedure
The data for this survey-based correlational study was collected by two students, under the supervision of one supervisor, during a period of two months. As this is a dyadic study, two different online questionnaires were developed: one for supervisors and one for subordinates (see appendix A-C). To avoid that LGBT supervisors’ status was disclosed to their subordinates, the survey for subordinates was set up in such a way that there was no information given on the LGBT status of the supervisor. Furthermore, to link the questionnaires of a certain supervisor and his or her subordinate a unique code was given or
LGBT status leader Leader-follower gender similarity Perceived leader effectiveness Leader gender Leader prototypicality
codes could be provided by the respective supervisor-subordinate dyad. The questionnaires were translated from English to Dutch, German and Norwegian (see appendix D-L). To ensure the quality of the translations, the translation back-translation procedure (Brislin, 1970) was used.
Next, non-random sampling techniques were used to collect data, which is often a necessity with research that focuses on the experiences of specific populations that are inherently hard to identify (Rosser, Oakes, Bockting, & Miner, 2007). More specifically, supervisors and employees in the networks of the students and supervisor were approached, and LGBT organizations and platforms were used to get in contact with LGBT supervisors. Besides this, the snowball sampling technique was used by asking respondents for suggestions regarding other employees and supervisors. Before respondents could take part in the study, they had to sign the informed consent, which contained information about the goal and procedure of the study, confidentiality and how to contact the researchers. Next, respondents were asked to answer questions about their supervisor, team, organization and demographics.
3.2 Sample
In total, 209 respondents filled out the questionnaire. However, the number of complete dyads was equal to 88, as not everyone who confirmed to participate filled out the survey, leading to incomplete leader-follower dyads. Furthermore, in 5 cases respondents filled out the wrong questionnaire.
Out of the 88 supervisors, 39 supervisors identified as non-LGBT and 49 supervisors identified as LGBT. More specifically, 41 supervisors indicated that to be exclusively heterosexual, 9 supervisors indicated to be somewhere along the heterosexual - homosexual continuum, and 38 supervisors indicated to be exclusively homosexual. Additionally, 19 supervisors indicated that they were born and expressed themselves as female, 66 supervisors indicated to be born and express themselves as male, and 3 supervisors indicated to be born female and express themselves as male predominantly. Furthermore, of the 49 supervisors identifying as LGBT, 3 supervisors indicated that they concealed their LGBT status fully within their organization, 12 supervisors indicated that they disclosed their LGBT status to some individuals in the organizations, and 34 supervisors indicated that they disclosed their LGBT status fully in their organization.
56.8% of the supervisors were Dutch, 26.1% were Norwegian, 5.7% were German, and 11.4% had other nationalities. Regarding ethnicity, 88.6% of the supervisors were Caucasian, 3.4% were Asian, 2.3% were Latino or Hispanic, and 5.7% did not want to disclose their ethnicity. Additionally, the highest education supervisors had finished is in 8% of the cases a PhD, in 43.2% a Master's Degree, in 28.4% a Bachelor’s Degree, and in 20.5% high school. Furthermore, team tenure for supervisors ranged from 1 to 35 years with an average tenure of 4 years, the average number of subordinates that supervisors directly supervised was 9, and the average number of subordinates that supervisors indirectly supervised was 35. Finally, 48 supervisors indicated to be first level managers, 14 supervisors indicated to be middle level managers, and 26 supervisors indicated to be senior managers.
Moreover, the age of subordinates ranged from 19 to 66 years, with an average of 37 years. 55.7% of the subordinates were Dutch, 30.7% were Norwegian, 4.5% were German, 8% had other nationalities, and 1.1 % did not want to disclose their nationality. Regarding ethnicity, 84.1% were Caucasian, 5.7% were Asian, 3.4% were Hispanic or Latino, and 6.8% did not want to disclose their ethnicity. Furthermore, the highest education subordinates had finished concerned a PhD in 2.3% of the cases, a Master's Degree in 30.7% of the cases, a Bachelor’s Degree in 45.5% of the cases, and high school in 21.6% of the cases. Team tenure for subordinates ranged from 1 to 27 years with an average tenure of 4 years. Finally, the number of subordinates identifying as non-LGBT is 62, and 26 for LGBT. More specifically, 62 subordinates indicated to be exclusively heterosexual, 16 supervisors indicated to be somewhere along the heterosexual - homosexual continuum, and 10 supervisors indicated to be exclusively homosexual. Moreover, 55 subordinates were born and expressed themselves as female, and 33 subordinates were born and expressed themselves as male.
3.3 Measures
Next, it will be discussed how the following variables were measured: leader LGBT status, leader prototypicality, leader gender, leader-follower gender similarity, perceived leader effectiveness, age of leader, age of follower, and follower LGBT status.
3.3.1 Leader LGBT status
To assess whether a leader contains the LGBT status, 3 questions adapted from Brewster et al. (2014) were asked, concerning sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
To indicate one’s sexual orientation, respondents could choose options on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 “Exclusively heterosexual” to 5 “Exclusively lesbian or gay”. Additionally, they were given the open option “Other self-specified sexual orientation, namely: …”. Furthermore, to indicate one’s gender identity, respondent could choose from four categories (e.g., “Women” and “Androgynous”). Finally, to measure gender expression, respondents could choose from eight options (e.g., “Woman-full time” and “Androgynous part-time”. Those leaders that indicated to be “Exclusively heterosexual” and indicated that their biological sex and gender identity were similar, were regarded as non-LGBT leaders. The other leaders were regarded as LGBT-leaders.
3.3.2 Leader prototypicality
To assess the extent to which followers perceived their leader to be leader prototypical, a shorter version of the 41 item Implicit Leadership Theories scale (Offerman, Kennedy & Wirtz, 1994) was used. The reason for this being that this will decrease the length of the questionnaire, since longer questionnaires are more prone to respondents answering randomly toward the middle of the survey (Meade & Craig, 2012). The shorter version was developed and validated by Epitropaki and Martin (1994), so that it now includes 21 characteristics of prototypical leaders (e.g., “Dedicated” and “Helpful”). Respondents had to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree” how well each characteristics fitted their image of their leader.
3.3.3 Leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity
To measure leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity, the gender expression scale developed by Brewster et al. (2014) was used (see section 3.3.1). In contrast to gender identity, gender expression was used here, as with leader gender in this study I specifically refer to gender based on immediately observable and measurable characteristics. Furthermore, the hypothesized moderating role of leader-follower gender similarity is based on individuals being drawn to similarity regarding readily observable attributes (Avery et al., 2012).
3.3.4 Perceived leader effectiveness
To assess the extent to which subordinates perceived their manager to be effective in their job, the 7 items adapted from Fielding and Hogg (1997) were used (e.g., “My manager helps the team achieve its goals” and “My manager encourages and supports team members”). Responses could be given on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree.
3.3.5 Control variables
Control variables in this study included leader age, subordinate age, and LGBT status of follower. The age of leaders and followers was controlled for as older individuals typically rely on more experience and status (Avolio, Waldman, & McDaniel, 1990; Kearney, 2008), which influences leader prototypicality (Junker & Van Dick, 2014) and in turn is likely to influence perceptions of leader effectiveness as well. To measure the age of leaders and followers, both groups had to write down their age choosing a number from 18 to 100. Furthermore, LGBT status of followers was controlled for, as followers tend to view their social group or in-group favorably (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990). This suggest that LGBT followers may rate LGBT leaders more favorably as compared to non-LGBT followers. The LGBT status of followers was measured in the same way as LGBT status of leaders (see section 3.3.1).
4. Results
In this chapter, the procedure for analyzing the data will be discussed. First, preliminary analyses and data screenings will be discussed, such as normality and reliability checks. Next, the hypotheses will be tested.
4.1 Dummy’s, frequencies, and counter indicative items
For the analysis of the hypothesis, three dummy variables were created. The first dummy variable represents the LGBT status of the leader with the values ‘non-LGBT’ (0) and ‘LGBT’ (1) and the second dummy variable represents the LGBT status of the follower with
the values ‘non-LGBT’ (0) and ‘LGBT’ (1). Additionally, a dummy variable was created representing leader-follower gender similarity with the values ‘leader-follower gender similarity’ (0) and ‘leader-follower gender dissimilarity’ (1). Next, a frequency test was done, which showed that there was no missing data. To make sure that there were no counter-indicative items, these items were recoded.
4.2 Normality
To check for normality, a kurtosis and skewness test was performed. After this, skewness, kurtosis and normality tests were performed for leader prototypicality and leader effectiveness. Both variables were not normally distributed. For leader prototypicality skewness was in the range between 0 and -1.5 and kurtosis was larger than 2. As extreme kurtosis can result in an underestimation of the variance (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001), a transformation was used such that skewness was in the range between -1 and -.50 and kurtosis between 0 and 2. Additionally, the skewness for leader effectiveness was smaller than -2, and kurtosis was larger than 2. Therefore, this variable was transformed as well such that skewness was in the range between 0 and 1.50, and kurtosis between 0 and 2.
4.3 Reliability
Reliability checks were performed for leader prototypicality, and leader effectiveness. A scale can be considered as reliable when Cronbach’s alpha is above .70 (George & Mallery, 2003) and item-total corrected correlations are above the .20 threshold (Sampaio, Goetz, & Schrag, 2012). The leader prototypicality scale consisting of 21 items had a good reliability as Cronbach's alpha = .85 and the corrected item-total correlations ranged from .21 to .73. Furthermore, the leader effectiveness scale consisting of 7 items had an excellent reliability as Cronbach’s alpha = .91 and corrected-item total correlations ranged from .65 to .83.
4.4 Means, standard deviations, and correlations
Next, means, standard deviations, and correlations were computed. As can be seen in Table 1, numerous correlations were found. First, the age of the leader was found to correlate negatively to both the age of the follower (r = .52, p < .01), LGBT status of the leader (r = -.28, p < .01) and leader effectiveness (r = -.25, p < .05). The LGBT status of the follower was
found to correlate negatively with leader-follower gender similarity (r = -.28, p < .01). Furthermore, leader LGBT status correlated negatively with gender of the leader (r = -.38, p < .05) and positively with perceived leader effectiveness (r = .22, p < .01). Finally, leader prototypicality was found to correlate negatively with both the gender of the leader (r = -.29, p < .01) and perceived leader effectiveness (r = .67, p < .01).
Table 1: Means, Standard Deviation, Correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha of Study Variables
** Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). 4.5 Hypothesis testing
Next, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested for by means of a hierarchical multiple regression. Moreover, a bootstrapping procedure was used along with the SPSS macro provided by Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007: Model 9, Moderated Mediation) to test for Hypothesis 3. All hypotheses were tested by controlling for leader age, follower age and LGBT status of follower.
4.5.1 Hypothesis testing for total effect
The first hypothesis holds that LGBT leaders are perceived as less effective by their followers as compared to non-LGBT leaders. A hierarchical multiple regression was performed to test whether there is a negative significant relationship between LGBT status leader and perceptions of leader effectiveness after controlling for leaders’ age, followers’ age, and followers’ LGBT status. The results are presented in Table 2.
Model 1 contained the control variables and was found to be statistically significant at F (3, 84) = 3.23, p < .05. When leaders’ LGBT status was included in Model 2 it remained statistically significant at F (1, 83) = 3.09, p < .05. The R value of .37 implies a positive
relationship between the control variables and leaders’ LGBT status taken together and perceived leader effectiveness. Furthermore, 3.2% of the variability in perceived leader effectiveness is accounted for by leaders’ LGBT status. Moreover, out of the four predictor variables in Model 2 leaders’ age was the only predictor that was found to be statistically significant (B = -.30, p < .05), suggesting that perceptions of leaders’ effectiveness will decrease by .30 if their age increases for one. Additionally, these results suggest that leaders’ LGBT status was not found to predict perceived leader effectiveness, after being controlled for by leaders’ age, followers’ age, and followers’ LGBT status (B = .07, p = .083). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Table 2: Hierarchical regression results of LGBT status follower as predictor for perceptions of leader effectiveness
** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
4.5.2 Hypothesis testing for interaction effect
To test whether a significant interaction effect was present between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness, the causal step approach proposed by Baron and Kenny (1986) was used. The first step includes testing whether the independent variable affects the dependent variable, the second step includes testing whether the independent variable affects the mediator, and the third step includes testing whether the independent variable affects the dependent variable when being controlled for the potential mediator. When these effects are all found and the effect in the first step is less than the effect in the third step, it can be concluded that an interaction effect is present (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
The effect of the independent variable LGBT status leader on the dependent variable perceived leader effectiveness has already been tested for in section 4.5.1, and was not found
to be statistically significant. According to Baron and Kenny (1986) this finding implies that the first condition for an interaction effect to be present is not met, and that therefore leader prototypicality does not interact with leaders’ LGBT status and perceived leader effectiveness. However, Hayes (2009) reasons that mediation can occur without meeting the first condition of the causal step approach by Baron and Kenny (1986). One explanation has to do with the total effect being the sum of the direct and indirect effects. If the indirect effect is positive, the indirect effect is negative, and the effects are of similar size, the total effect would be zero (Hayes, 2009). This would thus allow mediation to occur without finding a total effect of leader LGBT status on perceived leader effectiveness. Therefore I proceeded to the second step, which included examining the effect of the independent variable LGBT status leader on the mediator leader prototypicality. This was done my means of a hierarchical multiple regression as well, of which the results are presented in Table 3.
Model 1 contained the control variables leaders’ age, followers’ age, and followers’ LGBT status, and was not found to be statistically significant at F (3, 84) = 1.99. After entry of leaders’ LGBT status in Model 2 the model remained statistically insignificant at F (1, 83) = .24, p = .198. Moreover, none of the four predictors proved to be significant, implying that the independent variable leaders’ LGBT status does not predict the mediator variable leader prototypicality. Since a relationship between the independent variable and mediator variable is a prerequisite to proceed to the third step (Baron & Kenny, 1986), no further analysis was allowed for. These results thus imply that leader prototypicality does not mediate the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness.
Table 3: Hierarchical regression results of LGBT status leader as predictor of leader prototypicality
** Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * Significant at the .05 level (2-tailed).
Additionally, the Sobel test developed by Sobel (1982) was performed, which is often used as a supplement to the causal step approach (Hayes, 2009). To obtain the necessary input a hierarchical multiple regression was done examining the effect of leaders’ LGBT status and leader prototypicality on perceived leader effectiveness (see Appendix M). The results of this test confirmed that leader prototypicality does not mediate the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceived leader effectiveness, Z = -.50, p = .617. However, an important assumption of regression analyses and the Sobel test is that the sampling distribution is normal (Hayes, 2009), which does not hold in this study. Therefore, the effect between leaders’ LGBT status and perceived leader effectiveness via leader prototypicality was also examined by means of the SPSS macro PROCESS provided by Preacher et al. (2007: Model 4, Simple Mediation) along with a bootstrapping procedure, as this does not assume the data to be normally distributed.
Regarding step 1, the effect of LGBT status leader on perceived leader effectiveness found is .07. However, this effect was statistically not different from zero, given the 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that includes zero (-.009 to .150). Therefore, these results support the results of the hierarchical multiple regression suggesting that leaders’ LGBT status does not predict perceptions of leader effectiveness. Regarding step 2, the effect of leaders’ LGBT status on leader prototypicality found was .01. However, this effect is statistically not different from zero either, as is revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that includes zero (-.038 to .063). Therefore, these results support the results of the hierarchical multiple regression suggesting that leaders’ LGBT status does not predict leader prototypicality.
Together the results provided no support for the second hypothesis, holding that a relationship exists between LGBT status of the leader and perceived leader effectiveness via perceived leader prototypicality. Hypothesis 2 is thus rejected.
4.5.3 Hypothesis testing for moderated mediation
Next, a bootstrapping procedure was used along with the SPSS macro provided by Preacher et al. (2007: Model 9, Moderated Mediation) to test for Hypotheses 3 and 4. More specifically, it was tested whether the indirect effect of LGBT status leader on perceived leader effectiveness via leader prototypicality was contingent on leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity.
there is no significant interaction between LGBT status leader and leader gender (ß = -.02, p = .787), indicating that leaders with an LGBT status are not perceived as less leader prototypical when the leader is male as compared to female. Furthermore, no significant interaction was found either between LGBT status leader and leader-follower gender similarity (ß = -.02, p = .721). More specifically, this suggests that leaders with an LGBT status are not perceived as less leader prototypical when leader-follower gender similarity occurs than when leader-follower gender dissimilarity occurs.
The non-significant interaction effects that were found between LGBT status leader and leader gender, and between LGBT status leader and leader-follower gender similarity do not allow for further analyses. Therefore, these results suggest that a moderated mediation does not take place within this model and that Hypotheses 3 and 4 are thus rejected.
Table 3: Test of moderated mediation, with leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity as moderators
Note: N = 88
4.6 Additional analyses
discussed in sections 4.1 to 4.4. Furthermore, the additional analyses were performed using the SPSS macro PROCESS provided by Preacher et al. (2007), except for the analysis examining the effect of openness of leaders’ LGBT status towards followers on perceptions of leader effectiveness. This effect was examined using hierarchical multiple regression.
4.6.1 Interaction effect
Step 2 of the causal step approach by Baron and Kenny (1986) was performed again using the 1-item leader prototypicality measure1 instead of the 21-item leader prototypicality measure. As a result, the new effect of leaders’ LGBT status on leader prototypicality found is .05. However, this effect is statistically not different from zero, as is revealed by a 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval that includes zero (-.558 to .657). Hereby, the results provide support for the findings in section 5.4.2, suggesting that no relationship exists between LGBT status of the leader and perceptions of leader effectiveness via perceived leader prototypicality.
When performing step 2 of the causal step approach by Baron and Kenny (1986) using the in-group leader prototypicality measure2 instead, the new effect of leaders’ LGBT status on leader prototypicality is -.02. However, this effect is statistically not different from zero either as is shown by the 95% BC bootstrap confidence interval including zero (-.607 to .560). Therefore, these results imply that no relationship exists between LGBT status of the leader and perceived leader effectiveness via in-group prototypicality either.
4.6.2 The effect of LGBT leaders’ openness towards followers on perceptions of leader effectiveness
Finally, the effect of openness of leaders’ LGBT status3 towards followers on perceptions of leader effectiveness was examined using hierarchical multiple regression, after having controlled for leaders’ age, followers’ age, and the LGBT status of followers. In addition, by
1 Followers were asked the extent to which they perceived their leader to be prototypical on a 7-point Likert
scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”.
2 To assess the extent to which followers perceived their leader to be prototypical of the group, the 2-item
ingroup leader prototypicality scale by Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg (2005) was used (e.g. “I consider my supervisor to be representative of the group”). Respondents had to indicate their answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”.
3
To measure openness of leaders’ LGBT status, the scale of Lloren and Parini (2016) was adopted. As this study focusses on the perceptions of leader effectiveness by followers, specifically the item asking leaders to indicate whether or not they revealed their LGBT status to their followers was used.
means of a bootstrapping procedure along with the SPSS macro provided by Preacher et al. (2007: Model 1, Simple Moderation) it was examined whether the following variables moderated this relationship: openness of the organizational culture4, leader gender, leader
self-esteem5, leader-follower LGBT status similarity6 and legitimacy7.
Model 1 of the hierarchical multiple regression contained the control variables and was not found to be statistically significant at F (3, 45) = .88, p < .05. When including openness of leaders’ LGBT status in Model 2, it remained not statistically significant at F (1,44) = .91. Moreover, out of the four predictor variables in Model 2, no predictors were found to be statistically significant. Therefore, these results suggest that openness of leaders’ LGBT status towards followers does not predict perceived leader effectiveness of LGBT leaders. Additionally, the results for testing moderation showed that the relationship between openness of leaders’ LGBT status towards followers on perceptions of leader effectiveness is not moderated by closeness within the organization (ß = .20, p = .146), leader gender (ß = -.01, p = .935), leader self-esteem (ß = -.37, p = .151), leader-follower LGBT status similarity (ß = -.02, p = .847) and legitimacy (ß = -.22, p = .098).
5. Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine the impact of leaders’ LGBT status on perceptions of leader effectiveness. Furthermore, this study aimed to examine whether leader prototypicality mediates this relationship, and if gender acts as a moderator. More specifically, it was examined whether leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity moderate the
4
To assess the openness of the organizational culture, 3 items adapted from Hofstede (1998) were used (e.g. “Where I work, the organization and people are closed and secretive”). Respondents had to indicate their answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”. Since Cronbach alpha was .30 when measured from the leader’s perspective, which is unacceptable, this construct was measured from the follower’s perspective. Cronbach’s alpha was .61, which is questionable (George & Mallery, 2003).
5 Self-esteem of the leader was measured by using the 10-item scale by Rosenberg (1965) (e.g. “I take a positive
attitude towards myself”). Respondents had to indicate their answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha was .77, however, the corrected item-total correlation for the item “I am able to do things as well as most other people” was .09, which is why this item was excluded. The new Cronbach’s alpha was .79.
6 Leader-follower LGBT status similarity was measured by excluding followers’ LGBT as a control variable,
and including it as a moderator variable instead. Since the sample taken here consists entirely of LGBT leaders, it means that leader-follower LGBT status similarity occurs when followers have indicated themselves that they are LGBT as well.
7
Legitimacy was measured using the 4-item scale by Choi and Mai-Dalton (1999) (e.g. “I want my supervisor to continue to be the leader of my team”). Respondents had to indicate their answer on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”.
mediating effect of leader prototypicality in the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness. However, the results of the hypotheses testing showed that neither of the hypotheses were supported. The findings will be discussed in more detail in the next part, along with the limitations of this study. Furthermore, suggestions for future research will be made.
5.1 Discussion of study results
LGBT individuals are increasingly achieving leadership positions, as organizations are focusing more and more on diversity and inclusion in the workplace (Fassinger, 2008). Because these LGBT leaders grew up belonging to a sexual minority, they hold unique skills and capabilities as compared to non-LGBT leaders (Brown 1989; Snyder, 2006). However, LGBT individuals have also been found to face bias and discrimination in the workplace related to their LGBT status (Fassinger 2008, Fassinger et al., 2010) as being heterosexual and cisgender are the norm in today’s society (Dietert & Dentice, 2009; Ozeren, 2014). This may lead followers to perceive LGBT leaders as less effective than non-LGBT leaders. Leader prototypically, in turn, is positively related to perceptions of leader effectiveness (Ensari & Murphy, 2003). This can have important implications for organizations, since the performance of organizations relies largely on leaders (Giessner et al., 2009), and the ability of leaders to be effective depends on how followers perceive them (Lord & Maher, 1991). As I did not find any research that studied the impact of leaders’ LGBT status on perceptions of leader effectiveness before, I examined this relationship. Moreover, I proposed that leader prototypicality mediated this relationship, and that gender had a moderating role.
First, in contrast to what was expected, no significant relationship was found between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness. More specifically, this suggests that LGBT leaders are not perceived as less effective than non-LGBT leaders. A possible explanation for this surprising finding could be that bias and discrimination towards LGBT individuals occurs less in the countries where this study was largely performed. More specifically, 88.6% of the leaders participating in this study were Dutch, Norwegian or German leaders, and 90.9% of the followers participating in this study were Dutch, Norwegian or German followers. This means that most respondents live in European countries located in the north and the west, where they have been on the forefront of policy developments and expansion of LGBT rights. For example, the Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001 (Kollman, 2016). Furthermore, an explanation
for these results could hold that leaders belonging to a sexual minority group have to perform especially well and meet higher standards in order to obtain and maintain leadership roles (Eagly & Chin, 2010), as a consequence of it being harder for them to obtain and maintain leadership roles as compared to non-LGBT individuals (Fassinger 2008; Fassinger et al., 2010). This in turn could lead to LGBT leaders being LGBT individuals that stand out (Eagly & Carli, 2001).
A third explanation could have to do with LGBT individuals holding invisible stigmas, in contrast to individuals belonging to other minorities, such as females and ethnic minorities. This means that LGBT leaders can choose to conceal their LGBT status (King & Reilly, 2008; Lloren & Parini, 2016), which would cause LGBT leaders to be perceived as non-LGBT leaders by followers, thereby removing the influence of their LGBT status on perceptions of leader effectiveness. To check for this, additional analyses were performed examining the influence of the openness of leaders’ LGBT status on perceptions of leader effectiveness (see section 5.6.2). However, the results showed that LGBT leaders who are open about their LGBT identity towards followers are not perceived as less effective leaders than LGBT leaders who conceal their LGBT identity towards followers. Moreover, openness of the organizational culture, leader gender, leader self-esteem, leader-follower LGBT status similarity and legitimacy were not found to moderate this relationship. The low amount of LGBT leaders not being open about their LGBT status towards their follower in this study could be a reason for these findings (N = 14). Moreover, 11 out of the 14 LGBT leaders concealing their LGBT status towards their followers, did not do so towards their colleagues and/or hierarchical managers. Therefore, in spite of their leaders concealing their LGBT status towards them, it is possible that followers of these leaders do know about their leaders’ LGBT status through other employees within the organization. Finally, it should be noted that the sample used here consists of 6 female LGBT leaders and that leader and follower both indicated themselves to be LGBT in 18 cases. These low sample sizes could explain why leader gender and leader-follower LGBT status similarity were not found to moderate the relationship between openness of leaders’ LGBT status towards followers and perceptions of leader effectiveness.
Regarding the second hypothesis, leader prototypicality was not found to mediate the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness. More specifically, in addition to rejecting Hypothesis 1 no significant relationship was found between leaders’ LGBT status and leader prototypicality, indicating that mediation is not possible according to the causal step approach of Baron and Kenny (1986). A possible
explanation for this finding could have to do with individuals generally being categorized on the basis of their most distinctive characteristics, as these best differentiate individuals from others in the population (Nelson & Miller, 1995). This allows for the possibility that leader prototypicality is not based on a leader’s LGBT status, since LGBT leaders hold invisible stigmas (King & Reilly, 2008; Lloren & Parini, 2016), but instead is based on more visible characteristics such as leader gender and leader attractiveness. However, concerning leader gender, it can be seen in Table 3 that the results of this study imply that leader gender does not predict leader prototypicality either (ß = -.07, p = .076). Here, it should be noted that a relatively small amount of female leaders participated in this study (N = 19).
Additionally, an explanation for rejecting the second hypothesis could lie in the way leader prototypicality was measured. As mentioned previously, this study has been performed in European countries mainly, while leader prototypicality here has been measured using a shorter version of the Implicit Leadership Theories scale (Offerman et al, 1994)developed in the US. This means that the scale reflects what Americans consider a prototypical leader to be like. It could be possible that the countries in which this study was performed hold different ideas of what characteristics a prototypical leader has. This is in line with Bass (1990), who suggests that leadership prototypes differ between cultures. Therefore, an additional analysis was performed using a 1-item measure asking respondents the extent to which they rated their leader to be prototypical (see section 5.6.1). However, these results also implied that leader prototypicality does not mediate the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness. Therefore, this explanation does not hold.
In addition, Lord, Foti and De Vader (1984) state that the characteristics leaders should have is context dependent. Therefore, an additional analysis was also performed examining the effect of in-group prototypicality on the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness (see section 5.6.1). However, these results implied that in-group prototypicality does not moderate the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and perceptions of leader effectiveness either. Finally, each of the 21 characteristics of the Implicit Leadership Theories scale were given the same relative importance, while it might be that some characteristics are more leader prototypical than others.
Next, it was examined whether leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity moderated the relationship between leaders’ LGBT status and leader prototypicality. However, no significant results were found, indicating that leader gender and leader-follower gender similarity does not moderate the effect of leaders’ LGBT status on leader
