DOES SEXUAL ORIENTATION AFFECT HOW LEADERS ARE PERCEIVED? THE INTERACTION EFFECT OF GENDER AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION ON
PERCEIVED LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS.
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace is a hurdle for many gay employees. While several studies present findings for factors that influence perceived leadership effectiveness, such as race and gender, very little research has focused on sexual orientation. Drawing on agentic and communal stereotypes and implicit leadership theories this research investigates how sexual orientation and gender interact to influence perceived leadership effectiveness. Specifically, the aim is to demonstrate a paradox, where lesbian women are perceived as more effective leaders compared to straight women, and gay men are perceived as less effective than their straight counterpart, where perceived leadership effectiveness also includes the measures of hireability and compensation. The second aim of this study is to show that the interactive effect of sexual orientation and gender on perceived leadership effectiveness is mediated by perceived communal and agentic traits. The study was conducted through an online survey, and found no support for differences in perceived leadership effectiveness for gay men and women, compared to their heterosexual counterpart. The research did find some support for sexual orientation and gender interacting to influence hireability. Gay men were perceived as more hireable than straight men, whereas straight women were perceived as less hireable than lesbian women. Furthermore, regarding the perceived traits, this research found support for an influence of gender on perceived communality, but not sexual orientation or an interaction thereof.
Keywords
INTRODUCTION
Headlines were made when the American agricultural company Land O’Lakes, Inc., appointed Beth Ford as CEO in 2018. She is the first lesbian woman to become CEO in the 100-year history of the company. This makes her only the third openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company, together with Tim Cook and Jim Fitterling. The rarity of openly gay individuals in leadership positions suggest the prevalence of discrimination based on sexual orientation that exists in today’s workforce, which shapes the lives of many gay people in a number of ways. Discrimination of the sexual orientation minority community is faced in all aspects of the work environment, from hiring to firing (Tilcsik, 2011). Consequences are highly problematic for gay and lesbian individuals that, through this discrimination, frequently experience a hostile work environment and are disadvantaged in their career progression (Sears & Mallory, 2014). Moreover, this negatively impacts businesses, as inclusive workplaces cultivate an abundance of beneficial outcomes, including but not limited to greater job commitment, increased productivity and other business-related outcomes (Badgett, Durso, Katanis & Mallory, 2013).
Stevenson (2010) called for a movement towards “an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender leadership paradigm”.
Due to the scarcity of literature, as well as due to the lack of openly gay leaders, the aim of this research will be to examine the perceived leadership effectiveness of gay men and lesbian women, relative to their straight counterpart. This research will aim to highlight the paradox of disclosed homosexuality having a positive effect on the leadership evaluation for women, and a negative effect for the leadership evaluations of men, which stems from their perceived communal or agentic traits. Hence, the research question will be formulated as follows: Do sexual orientation and gender interact to influence perceived leadership effectiveness?
The expected paradox, of lesbian women being perceived as more effective leaders compared to straight women, and gay men being perceived as less effective than straight men is expected to arise from the mediating effect of perceived communal or agentic traits. Based on role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and implicit inversion theory (Kite & Deaux, 1987), straight men and lesbian women are perceived as agentic, whereas gay men and straight women are perceived as communal. Implicit leadership theories (Lord & Maher, 1991) suggest that individuals perceived as agentic will be perceived as effective leaders leading to the above stated paradox.
the framework through which we study perceptions of leadership effectiveness, related to sexual orientation minorities.
Practical contributions are relevant for organisations and leaders alike. First and foremost, understanding the way in which we perceive others based on demographic factors such as sexual orientation and therefore being able to act accordingly is crucial. Discriminatory acts negatively affect the recipient (Burgess, Lee, Tran & Van Ryn, 2007). It is necessary for gay and straight leaders and followers to gain knowledge on biases we may hold to improve our own behaviour towards others. Secondly, for organisation, not only can differences in perceived leadership effectiveness lead to a hostile work environment due to discrimination, it can turn into legal consequences. With an increase in anti-discriminatory policies and the rise of an inclusive workplace for everyone, discrimination based on sexual orientation (and other demographic factors) can cost an organisation large sums. Thus, hiring and HR managers must be aware of their perceptions of others. Finally, gay and straight leaders can gain further understanding of how they are perceived. This can be valuable knowledge to improve one’s own career progression. Thus, after reviewing the theoretical background, hypotheses are formed, which will be examined through the method presented. Afterwards the results, discussion, contributions and limitations, as well as directions for future research are presented.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
existing research on sexual orientation and perceived leadership effectiveness, the hypotheses are formed.
Perceived Communal and Agentic Traits as Stereotypes
Literature on gender stereotypes often focuses on two distinct dimensions, agency and communion, two concepts put forth by Bakan (1966). These psychological dimensions are considered to be two fundamental modalities of human nature (Bosak, Sczesny & Eagly, 2008). The concept of agency is related to the self-advancement in social hierarchies (Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012). Traits included in the agentic category are therefore dominance, competitiveness and decisiveness. On the other hand, the concept of communality is associated with the maintenance of positive relationships (Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012). Thus, traits such as being caring and emotional are considered communal traits. As agency and communion overlap with the ideas of “masculine” and “feminine” traits, respectively, they have been used actively in gender stereotype literature (Abele, 2003).
Additionally, gender stereotypes stem from the notion of sex roles which “refer to socially shared expectations about how men and women should behave” (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie & Reichard, 2008). By combining the prescriptive nature of sex roles and the two concepts of agency and communion, social role theory by Eagly (1987) builds the basis of what we consider gender stereotypes. According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), it is expected of women to be communal, displaying traits such as being caring and emotional. On the other hand, men are expected to be agentic, hence, it is expected that they display traits such as being competitive and decisive (Eagly, 1987; Abele, 2003). This research will make use of these gender stereotypes.
Thus, gay men are perceived to be communal, much like heterosexual women. Lesbian women are perceived as agentic, much like heterosexual men. Fasoli, Maass, Paladino and Sulpizio (2017) demonstrated this adoption of gender-inverted stereotypes for gay individuals in a study where participants attributed feminine characteristics to gay speakers and masculine characteristics to lesbian speakers. Thus, it is expected that straight men and lesbian women will be perceived as agentic, whereas straight women and gay men will be perceived as communal.
Perceived Communal and Agentic Traits and Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
Perceived leadership effectiveness is often linked to implicit leadership theories (ILTs), which are defined “as cognitive structures or prototypes specifying the traits and abilities that characterize leaders” (Epitropaki, Martin, Tram-Quon, & Topakas, 2013: 859). When someone matches the implicit leadership prototype that one holds by demonstrating the expected behaviour or traits, they are categorized as a leader (see also leader categorization theory, Lord & Maher, 1991). When someone is categorized as a leader, because they have activated the leader prototype by matching the ILT, they are evaluated more positively than someone who is not categorized as a leader, even if the behaviour is similar (Lord & Maher, 1991).
individuals perceived as agentic will be evaluated more favourably in terms of leadership effectiveness.
This agentic leadership prototype leads to a double-bind for women in organisational settings, which Eagly and Karau (2002) have coined role congruity theory. Firstly, the stereotypical female attributes, communal traits, are inconsistent with the stereotype of an effective leader, leading to the assumption that women are ineffective in such positions. This mismatch between the desired qualities of a leader and those associated with women leads to what Heilman (1983, 2001) coined the “lack of fit” model. Secondly, when women act in line with the ideals of an effective leader, such that they act to portray agentic traits, they are punished for deterring from their prescriptive stereotype of how a woman should behave (Eagly & Karau, 2002), leaving them with a less favourable evaluation, than agentic men. Rudman (1998) defined this as the backlash effect, which takes place when women display agentic behaviour, thus increasing their perceived competence; however, it decreases their likability, therefore resulting in an overall negative evaluation, compared to men. An example of this is shown by MacNell et al. (2014), who found that students of online courses gave an instructor a significantly higher rating when they believed the instructor was male compared to female. This was regardless of the actual identity of the instructor, and therefore differences in behaviour. This supports the double-bind and backlash effect experienced by women in leadership positions.
Sexual Orientation and Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
an explanation for the pay level differences between gay individuals and their straight counterpart. Studies are consistently showing that gay men, on average, earn less than straight men, where the differences in the studies varied from 10 to 32 percent of the earnings of a straight man (Romero, Baumle, Badgett & Gates, 2007). On the other hand, women in same-sex relationships earn the same, or even more than their heterosexual counterparts (Romero et al., 2007).
The limited number of previous studies regarding sexual orientation and perceived leadership effectiveness vary in their results. In the only study which included gay and straight women for example, Liberman and Golom (2015) found that gay, male managers were perceived as less similar to the effective leader prototype, than heterosexual male and heterosexual female managers. On the other hand, lesbian female leaders were seen moderately similarly to the effective leader prototype.
leaders less favorably than heterosexual male leaders. Finally, Pellegrini, De Cristofaro, Giacomantonio and Salvati (2020), also found support for gay men being evaluated less favorably than their heterosexual counterpart by individuals with high sexual prejudice.
Based on role congruity theory and the inverted stereotype of gay individuals, this study examines if the individuals perceived as agentic, based on the interaction of sexual orientation and gender, will be perceived as having higher leadership effectiveness. Therefore, it is expected that the double-bind is eliminated for lesbian women, as they are perceived as agentic, leading to a higher evaluation in competence. Furthermore, they are not penalized for deterring from their inverted-stereotype, leading to a more favourable evaluation in leadership effectiveness overall, than that of straight women. On the other hand, the stereotype of a gay man places him in a disadvantaged position, where he will be considered similar to a straight woman, communal, and therefore as less effective in leadership positions. Hence, hypothesis 1 and 2 are stated as follows.
Hypothesis 1: Sexual orientation and gender interact to influence perceived leader effectiveness, such that heterosexual males are perceived as more effective, compared to their gay male counterparts. In contrast, heterosexual females, are perceived as less effective compared to their lesbian female counterparts.
Hypothesis 2: The interactive effect of sexual orientation and gender on perceived leadership effectiveness is mediated by perceived communal versus agentic traits.
FIGURE 1
Figure 1. Conceptual model of the relation between sexual orientation and gender on perceived leader effectiveness, mediated by the perception of communal and agentic traits.
METHOD Participants and Design
The study used a 2x2 (Gender x Sexual Orientation) design. Gender consisted of the two levels female and male, whereas sexual orientation consisted of the levels gay and straight. Therefore, participants were randomly assigned to one out of four possible conditions.
Procedure, Manipulations and Measures
Before the beginning of the survey, participants were asked to sign a consent form, agreeing to participate in the research. Further, they were presented with a short introduction to the research topic. However, as the potential biases that a person holds towards people of a certain sexual orientation are implicit, the true purpose of the study was concealed through deception. The respondents of the survey were told that the purpose of the study was to determine the hireability of a potential CEO, in order to ensure that the true thoughts of an individual regarding their perceived leadership effectiveness are given. Due to social pressure, a participant might not feel comfortable expressing their true opinion regarding their view of different sexual orientations, in fear of appearing prejudiced. Furthermore, a participant might be unaware of their subconscious biases.
presented various questions related to the variables presented below. Finally, the candidate was asked to fill in manipulation checks, as well as questions related to their demographic. After completion of the survey, the true purpose of the study was revealed.
Manipulations of Sexual Orientation and Gender. Each participant read a description of one of the four cases, where the behaviour and history of the described person is the same. The gender manipulation was at the beginning of each description where the candidate was referred to as Charles (male) or Amy (female). The names were based on traditionally gendered names (Bauer & Coyne, 1997) to ensure that the candidate would be viewed as male or female. The sexual orientation manipulation was at the end of each description where it was stated whether the candidate lives with their husband Derek (male), or wife Jessica (female).
Perceived traits (communal versus agentic). After the manipulations, the participant was asked to rate the candidate on multiple communal and agentic traits, presented on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree, to (7), strongly agree, adapted from Rosette and Tost (2010). The agentic trait scale consisted of five items (α = .77), including the traits skillful, confident, competitive, powerful and capable. The communal trait scale consisted of six items (α = .92), including warm, good nature, friendly, considerate, caring and understanding.
Leadership effectiveness. To continue, leadership effectiveness was measured using two scales; a perceived leadership effectiveness and a hireability scale. First, the participant was asked to what extent they agree or disagree with four statements regarding leadership effectiveness (α = .88), adapted from Holladay and Coombs (1994) and the Multi Leadership Questionnaire by Bass and Avolio (1995). On a scale of (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree, they were asked if they thought the candidate would be an effective leader, the candidate would be a good leader, the candidate would be effective in a CEO position and the candidate would be effective at convincing people to follow them.
effective in a leadership (CEO) position. Here, the participant was asked to rate the hireability of the candidate on three items (α = .83). Specifically, the participant was asked to rate how likely it was that they would interview the candidate for a CEO position, they would hire the candidate for a CEO position and how likely it was that others would hire the candidate for a CEO position, on a scale of (1) Extremely Unlikely to (7) Extremely Likely.
Compensation. Moreover, the participant was asked which compensation they would provide the candidate with annually. The scale ranged from $1 million to $20 million, as the average annual compensation for a Fortune 500 CEO is considered to be $11 million (Fottrell, 2018). This was to examine if there would be differences in pay between the different conditions. Furthermore, it was expected that higher perceived leadership effectiveness would lead to higher compensation.
Manipulation checks. As it was crucial that respondents were aware of the sexual orientation and gender of the candidate they reviewed, two manipulation checks asking about the candidates’ gender and sexual orientation were included at the end of the study. If the participant answered one of these falsely, they were excluded from the sample, as mentioned above. A total of 28 participants were excluded due to answering one of the manipulation checks incorrectly.
Data Analysis
RESULTS Preliminary Analysis
Intercorrelations, together with the mean and standard deviation of the variables are displayed in Table 1. The dependent variable of perceived leadership effectiveness was measured through three scales, namely perceived leadership effectiveness, hireability and compensation. It was expected that hireability would be correlated to perceived leadership effectiveness because when someone is perceived as being more hireable, it is expected that they are perceived as an effective leader. This was supported, as perceived hireability and perceived leadership effectiveness were highly and positively correlated (r = .74, p = .00). In addition, it was expected that compensation given to the candidate would be correlated to perceived leadership effectiveness, as higher pay assumed that the candidate was perceived as more effective. This was also supported, as compensation and perceived leadership effectiveness were positively correlated (r = .18, p = .02).
For the mediating effect of perceived traits, it is crucial to examine the relationship between the perceived communal and agentic traits and perceived leadership effectiveness. Both, communality (r = .47, p = .00) and agency (r = .07, p = .00) correlated positively with perceived leadership effectiveness. Furthermore, communality (r = .35, p = .01) and agency (r = .62, p = .01) correlated positively with hireability. Neither communal traits (r = .12, p = .11), nor agentic traits (r = .13, p = .08) were correlated with compensation. These findings show mixed results regarding the second hypothesis, as it was expected that only agency correlates positively with perceived leadership effectiveness, hireability and compensation, due to agentic traits being part of the implicit leadership prototype.
TABLE 1 Mean, Standard Deviation and Intercorrelations of Variables
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Age 33.55 10.15 - - - - 2. Gender 1.46 1.24 -.07 - - - - 3. Sexual Orientation 1.10 0.32 -.01 -.09 - - - - 4. Communal Traits 5.27 0.84 -.03 -.04 -.02 - - - - - 5. Agentic Traits 6.09 0.59 -.01 -.13 01 .24** - - - -
6. Perceived Leadership Effectiveness 5.92 0.80 -.02 -.14 .01 .47** .07** - - -
7. Hireability 6.16 0.80 .12 -.20** .08 .35** .62** .74** - -
8. Compensation 5.92 4.43 -.23** .14 .09 .12 .13 .18* .07 -
Notes. N = 173. For gender, 1 = female and 2 = male. For sexual orientation, 1 = heterosexual, 2 = homosexual, 3 = bisexual, 4 = pansexual, 5 = asexual and 6
Assumptions
In order to analyse the hypothesized relationships further through two-way ANOVA, the assumptions of normality and Levene’s test of equality of error variances were tested. While the assumption of equality of error variances was not violated in any of the analyses, the normality assumption was often violated. The Shapiro-Wilk test for normality indicated that perceived leadership effectiveness (W(173) = .87, p = .00), hireability (W(173) = .83, p = .00), compensation (W(173) = .89, p = .00), communality (W(173) = .97, p = .02), and agency (W(173) = .94 p = .00), were not normally distributed. For example, perceived leadership effectiveness was non-normally distributed with skewness of -1.71 (SE = .19) and kurtosis of 7.77 (SE = .37) and communality was non-normally distributed with a skewness of -0.07 (SE = .16) and kurtosis of -0.73 (SE = .37).
While the normality can be assessed collectively for each variable it is common practice to analyse normality per condition as well, to see if the data can be transformed (Faraway, 2015; Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter & Li, 2005). The data can be transformed when all groups are skewed in the same direction. However, for most variables, the direction differed between groups. For example, communality is negatively skewed for gay men (skewness = -0.48, SE = .37, kurtosis = 1.30, SE = .72) and positively skewed for straight women (skewness = 0.41, SE = .35, kurtosis = -0.78, SE = .69). After careful examination of the histograms, and as ANOVA is considered relatively robust against normality violations (Glass, Peckham & Sanders, 1972; Maxwell & Delaney, 2004), this research assumes that the data is sufficient and the analyses were carried out without transforming the data.
Testing of Hypotheses
orientation on perceived leadership effectiveness, F(1, 169) = 0.02, p = .89, partial η2 = .00. Furthermore, there was no support for a main effect of gender on perceived leadership effectiveness, F(1, 169) = 2.49, p = .12, partial η2 = .02. Moreover, the analysis found no support for a statistically significant interaction of gender and sexual orientation for the perceived leadership effectiveness score, F(1,169) = 1.85, p = .18, partial η2 = .01. ANOVA results for hypothesis 1 can be found in Table 3.
Additionally, for hireability, there was no support for a main effect of sexual orientation, F(1, 169) = 0.18, p = .67, partial η2 = .00. There was also no support for a main effect of gender on hireability, F(1, 169) = 1.27, p = .26, partial η2 = .01. Yet, there is a marginally significant interaction between gender and sexual orientation for the hireability score, F(1,169) = 3.708, p = .06, partial η2 = .02. Contrary to hypothesis 1, these results suggest that female heterosexual candidates (M = 6.23, SD = 0.60) are perceived as having higher hireability, compared to female lesbian candidates (M = 5.95, SD = 1.06). Furthermore, male gay candidates (M = 6.32, SD = 0.70) are perceived as more hirable than male heterosexual candidates (M = 6.13, SD = 0.76). This can be seen in Figure 2.
TABLE 2 Mean (and standard deviation) per condition
Gender Sexual
Orientation
Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
Hireability Compensation Communal
Traits Agentic Traits Female Heterosexual 5.90 (0.71) 6.23 (0.60) 6.30 (4.58) 5.04 (0.94) 6.13 (0.53) Homosexual 5.76 (1.06) 5.95 (1.06) 5.41 (4.07) 5.17 (0.84) 6.05 (0.75) Male Heterosexual 5.93 (0.65) 6.13 (0.76) 6.07 (4.66) 5.38 (0.80) 5.99 (0.56) Homosexual 6.11 (0.66) 6.32 (0.70) 5.90 (4.48) 5.51 (0.70) 6.21 (0.49) Notes. N = 173 TABLE 3
ANOVA Table for perceived leadership effectiveness, hireability and compensation
Source df MS F p Partial η2
Perceived Leadership Effectiveness
Sexual Orientation 1 0.01 0.02 .89 .00
Gender 1 1.56 2.49 .12 .02
Gender * Sexual Orientation 1 1.16 1.85 .18 .01
Error 169 0.63
Hireability
Sexual Orientation 1 0.11 0.18 .67 .00
Gender 1 0.86 1.27 .26 .01
Gender * Sexual Orientation 1 2.35 3.71 .06 .02
Error 169 0.64
Compensation
Sexual Orientation 1 12.22 0.62 .43 .00
Gender 1 0.73 0.04 .85 .00
Gender * Sexual Orientation 1 5.70 0.29 .59 .00
Error 169 19.82
FIGURE 2
Estimated Marginal Means of Hireability for Straight and Gay Candidates across Gender
Hypothesis 2. The second hypothesis stated that the interaction effect of sexual orientation and gender on perceived leadership effectiveness is mediated by the perceived traits of the candidate. All results for hypothesis 2 can also be found in Table 4. For perceived communal traits, there was no statistically significant main effect of sexual orientation, F(1, 169) = 1.14, p = .29, partial η2 = .01. However, there is a main effect of gender on perceived communal traits, F(1,169) = 7.32, p = .01, partial η2 = .04. Female candidates (M = 5.12, SD = 0.09) are perceived as less communal than male candidates (M = 5.45, SD = 0.09). Contrary to hypothesis 2, the two-way ANOVA showed no statistically significant interaction of gender and sexual orientation on perceived communality, F(1,169) = 0.00, p = .99, partial η2 = .00.
agency, F(1,169) = 2.71, p = .10, partial η2 = .02. Thus, no support was found for the second hypothesis.
Overall, all analyses were also carried out with outliers excluded. Scores were considered an outlier, and therefore excluded from the sample, when the score was two standard deviations higher or lower than the mean. There were no meaningful changes in the analyses presented above, except that the main effect of gender on perceived communal traits was reduced to being marginally significant, F(1, 169) = 5.66, p = .02 partial η2 = .04. Furthermore, ANCOVA was used to control for gender, age and sexual orientation of the participants. Here, there were no meaningful changes for the reported analysis. Due to the overall lack of support for the two hypotheses, the full model was not tested.
TABLE 4
ANOVA Table for perceived communal and perceived agentic traits
Source df MS F p Partial η2
Communal Traits
Sexual Orientation 1 0.76 1.14 .29 .01
Gender 1 5.04 7.32 .01 .04
Gender * Sexual Orientation 1 9.14E-7 0.00 .99 .00
Error 169 0.69
Agentic Traits
Sexual Orientation 1 0.23 0.65 .42 .00
Gender 1 0.01 0.01 .90 .00
Gender * Sexual Orientation 1 0.96 2.71 .10 .02
Error 169 0.35
DISCUSSION
This study aimed to explain the interaction of sexual orientation and gender on perceived leadership effectiveness, mediated by perceived traits. Analysis of collected data did not find support for the hypotheses. However, the analysis demonstrated an interaction of sexual orientation and gender on hireability, such that straight women had higher hireability than lesbian women and gay men were perceived as more hireable than straight men. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution, as the effect was not strong. Additionally, support was found for an effect of gender on perceived traits, such that male candidates were perceived as more communal compared to female candidates.
Alternative Explanations
Contrary to expectations, no support was found for a difference in the perceived leadership effectiveness of gay and straight candidates. Therefore, this section will aim to examine alternative explanations. Firstly, recent studies suggest that the attitudes towards gay men and lesbian women has become more positive in recent years (Jonathan, 2008; Saad, 2012). Pew Research Center (2015) also demonstrated that the general public has become more accepting of gay individuals. This positive progression could be reflected in the results, as there was no support for differences in the way that the different candidates were perceived in terms of leadership effectiveness.
Therefore, in this research, any descriptive stereotypes regarding sexual orientation and thus expectations of their traits could have been corrected for by the behavioural information communicated about the candidate in question through the description. By providing evidence of a qualified candidate, with their educational and professional background, the descriptive stereotypes regarding sexual orientation, as well as gender, were potentially corrected for and replaced with the information provided. Hence, there is no support for sexual orientation and gender interacting to influence the perceived leadership effectiveness.
A different perspective regarding the results is grounded in a new stream of leadership theory. A lack of support for the hypotheses can be a result of a positive change in the subconscious idea of salient leadership traits. Hypothesized and dominant in literature is an agentic, masculine leadership image due the implicit leadership prototype, as referred to in the literature section of this research. However, with the rise of new leadership theories, as well as more women in leadership positions acting as role models, the underlying implicit idea of leadership has potentially gone more in a direction where communal traits are also perceived as necessary.
were held by women, which has been the highest number ever recorded thus far (Grant Thorton, 2019). This further leads to the typical “white-male”, and by extension heterosexual, leader protype being challenged. With this increase in the importance of communal traits such as collaboration, empathy, and investment in development efforts of employees (Book, 2000; Fletcher, 2004) the problem of facing a double bind due to role congruity theory presented above may lessen as a result. This suggests that candidates expected to be at a disadvantage, due to their expected perceived communality, straight females and gay males, would not be perceived as less effective leaders, which has been the case in this research.
However, as the results found some support for a difference in the hireability scores of the candidates, it is important to consider further nuances of leadership theory. As mentioned in the literature section, women face a larger penalty for defying gender norms (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Kark et al. (2012) found support for this regarding the androgynous leadership theory as well, meaning women faced a larger penalty for not demonstrating androgynous behaviour, compared to men, resulting in advice for women to blend masculine and feminine behaviours, especially in situations which are non-role congruent (i.e. leadership positions). The above-mentioned theoretical concepts could explain why heterosexual women were perceived as marginally more hireable than their gay counterpart, and gay men perceived as marginally more hireable than their heterosexual counterpart. Due to communal traits being perceived as important, gay men, which are often perceived as more communal, potentially have an advantage as they do not face the penalty for violating their gender norm, but rather they fulfil the masculine stereotype simply by being a man, and the androgynous behaviour requirement by being perceived as more communal. Lesbian women on the other hand, perceived as more agentic than their straight counterpart, potentially face the barrier of the penalty due to their gender, additional to the non-conformance to its role by identifying as gay.
of gender roles, may trump the positive effect of androgynous behaviour. Blashill and Pwolishta (2009) demonstrated that when women violated gender roles, the results were lower ratings in likability and being viewed as a desirable work partner, as well as being avoided more. Specifically, for women in a study of self-reports, Rheineck (2005) reported that lesbians who self-identified as violating the female gender role, by identifying as “butch” or “butch-dyke”, believed that the agentic behavioural style led to discrimination. Men on the other hand, straight and gay alike, already fulfil a dominant part of the implicit leadership prototype, simply by belonging to the dominant gender; male (Morton, 2017; Johnson et al., 2008). Thus, belonging to a sexual orientation minority is of a relatively lower importance and does not impact the evaluation of leadership effectiveness for gay, male leaders.
The theoretical perspectives presented above further link to the main effect of gender on communality found in this research. It was hypothesized that men, compared to women, would be seen as agentic. However, through the vignette of the candidate, men were perceived as more communal. The description of the candidate is fairly agentic due to its need to fulfil CEO qualifications. However, due to the social description and mention of spending time with children, the candidate is also painted with communal qualities. With the female gender facing greater penalty for displaying agentic behaviour, and being expected to act communally, male candidates in this research were perceived as relatively more communal, as they are being praised for the communal aspects in addition to the agentic aspects.
Theoretical Implications
differences in how individuals are perceived due to their sexual orientation. Thus, this adds to existing literature in the fields of LGBTQ+ communities and leadership. While previous research has focused on gay, male leaders (Morton, 2017), this research demonstrates that the gender of the individual may influence the effect of sexual orientation on perceived hireability.
Additionally, this research found that men were perceived to be more communal than women, continuing the stream of literature concerning perceived gender differences. This outcome supports role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and the backlash effect (Rudman, 1998) suggesting that the female candidates in this research were evaluated less favourably in communality, due to the defiance of their gender role. Furthermore, it is in line with research suggesting that the backlash effect for women is especially strong in male dominated tasks (Ritter & Yoder, 2004). As CEO is a male dominated position and the behaviour was described as agentic, the double-bind for the female candidate is particularly strong, which can be seen from the perceived less communal evaluation.
Practical Implications
orientation due to discrimination, the non-disclosure can lead to several negative outcomes, including lower job satisfaction, organizational commitment and higher turnover intentions (Ragins, Singh & Cornwell, 2007). Furthermore, it has even been shown that the work partner of a leader who does not disclose their minority sexual orientation, may be negatively impacted (Everly, Shih & Ho, 2012).
By finding support for role congruity theory and the backlash received by women in male dominated fields, this research has practical implications for men and women, as well as hiring managers. Again, hiring managers must be aware of how they perceive candidates simply based on demographic aspects such as gender. Equally relevant is the implication for the candidate themselves. Understanding how one is perceived can give insight into how to optimally present oneself. To illustrate, women aiming to reduce the amount of backlash received for leadership positions may want to highlight an androgynous trait profile, instead of a purely agentic profile, to minimize the double-bind of role congruity theory. Additionally, men may also want to highlight their androgynous trait profile, compared to a purely agentic traits, to further improve their evaluations.
Limitations and Future Research Suggestions
and the average age of the C-suit is 56 years (Korn Ferry, 2020). Furthermore, the largely female sample (72.3%) could be another reason for insignificant differences in the perceived leadership effectiveness of the gay individuals. Kite and Whitley Jr. (1996) in a meta-analysis found that heterosexual men tend to have a more negative attitude towards gay individuals. Thus, for future research it would be interesting to see if there is a generational as well as gender effect on the perception of leadership effectiveness, related to sexual orientation, rather than controlling for them. It would be expected for example, that older generations show greater differences in perception compared to younger generations. In addition, future research should add a comparison of how gay individuals perceive the effectiveness of their own sub-groups in comparison to the largely heterosexual sample. Overall, a more diversified sample should be included in future research.
Secondly, the strength of the sexual orientation manipulation was a limitation of this study. The manipulation was very subtle. This was done in order to decrease the chances of inflated scores. If participants picked up on the true purpose of the study, their evaluation could be inflated due to the participant not wanting to seem bias. However, with the manipulation of sexual orientation being so subtle in this research, it is possible that this got lost in the other information provided and therefore did not result in significant differences. While a manipulation check was used to ensure that participants were aware of the sexual orientation, it is possible that the subtilty undermined its effects. Thus, future research should also incorporate stronger, more obvious manipulations of sexual orientation.
effectiveness differently based on context. Hence, while this limitation does not influence the results, caution should be exercised in the generalizability of the findings. Future research should address this by additionally investigating if differences in perceived leadership effectiveness exist or differ in different contexts. For example, it would be interesting to see how results differ for a communal description and for an androgynous description in female dominated positions, as well as positions considered balanced.
An additional limitation is the theoretical use of agency and communality. In this study, the constructs were measured individually, rather than on a bi-polar scale. The reason for this being that they are not two mutually exclusive constructs (Trapnell & Paulhus, 2012), which can be seen in the results, as both are fairly high across the conditions. However, theoretically in literature and this research, the concepts are used in opposition to one another and thus the scales might not accurately represent the perceived traits at the behavioural level. As Trapnell and Paulhus (2012) point out, at the behavioural level, the two concepts are often used as orthogonal concepts. Thus, while the use of two different scales is reasonable, a bi-polar scale could also be considered appropriate and might lead to different results.
Finally, a limitation exists with respect to the levels used for sexual orientation and gender. Due to its scope, this research decided to focus on two levels of sexual orientation and gender, namely gay and straight, as well male and female. This treats the concepts as categorical. However, language used to describe gender and sexual diversities has changed drastically in recent years to include more terms, definitions and variations (Jourian, 2015). Most recently, the concepts are seen as scales rather than continuous, demonstrating the vast diversity that exists within. This diversity makes research on the concepts more complex, however future research should embrace the fluid nature of sexual orientation and gender whenever possible to gain a deeper understanding.
LGBTQ+ research. The relationship between sexual orientation and perceived traits, as well as perceived leadership effectiveness appears to be more nuanced than originally hypothesized. Thus, further manipulations such as behaviour should be included in future research. For example, in a 3x2 research design including sexual orientation (gay vs straight), gender (female vs male) and behaviour (agentic vs communal). Based on the review presented above, it would, for exemplification, be expected that gay men who act in communal ways are more likely to be perceived as less effective leaders than gay men who act in agentic ways.
Likewise, the variable of homonegativity could be added as a potential moderator. Homonegativitiy is defined as “negative affect, cognitions, and behaviours directed toward individuals who are perceived – correctly or incorrectly – to be gay or lesbian” (Morrison & Morrison, 2011: 2573). For instance, Morton (2017) found that when participants scored higher on homonegativity, they evaluated gay male leaders more negatively on effectiveness variables, compared to their heterosexual counterpart. Parenthetically, when participants displayed low homonegativity scores, there were no significant differences in the leadership effectiveness evaluation of gay and straight male leaders. Therefore, future research should incorporate the concept of homonegativity related to both male, and female gay leaders.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Abele, A. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 85(4), 768-776. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.768
Badgett, M., Durso, L., Kastanis, A. and Mallory, C. (2013). The Business Impact of LGBT-Supportive Workplace Policies. The Williams Institute.
Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. An essay on psychology and religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) [Database record]. PsycTESTS.
Bauer, P. J., & Coyne, M. J. (1997). When the name says it all: Preschoolers' recognition and use of the gendered nature of common proper names. Social Development, 6(3), 271-291.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). The impact of sexual orientation and gender role on evaluations of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(2), 160.
Book, E. W. (2000). Why the best man for the job is a woman: The unique female qualities of leadership. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Communion and agency judgments of women and men as a function of role information and response format. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1148-1155.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665.
Burgess, D., Lee, R., Tran, A., & Van Ryn, M. (2007). Effects of perceived
discrimination on mental health and mental health services utilization among gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(4), 1-14.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2008). Research in industrial and organizational psychology from 1963 to 2007: Changes, choices, and trends. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1062.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Eagly, A., & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858-881.
European Parliament (2012). Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Retrieved from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN
Everly, B. A., Shih, M. J., & Ho, G. C. (2012). Don't ask, don't tell? Does disclosure of gay identity affect partner performance? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 407-410.
Faraway, J. J. (2015). Linear models with R. CRC press.
Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay-and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1261-1277.
Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist, 65(3), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018597
Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647-661.
Fottrell, Q. (2018). Fortune 500 CEOs are paid from double to 5,000 times more than their employees. MarketWatch. Retrieved 19 April 2020, from
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fortune-500-ceos-are-paid-from-double-to-5000-times-more-than-their-employees-2018-05-16.
Gill, M. J. (2004). When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive
stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 619-632.
Goodman, J. A., Schell, J., Alexander, M. G. & Eidelman, S. (2008). The impact of a derogatory remark on prejudice toward a gay male leader. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(2), 542-555. doi:10.1111/j.1559- 1816.2008.00316.x
Grant Thorton. (2019). Women in Business: Building a Blueprint for Action. Grant Thornton Grant Thornton International Ltd.
Gündemir, S., Homan, A., de Dreu, C., & van Vugt, M. (2014). Think Leader, Think White? Capturing and Weakening an Implicit Pro-White Leadership Bias. Plos ONE, 9(1). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083915
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.
Holladay, S. J., & Coombs, W. T. (1994). Speaking of Visions and Visions Being Spoken. Management Communication Quarterly, 8(2), 165–189.
doi:10.1177/0893318994008002002
Johnson, S. K., Murphy, S. E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R. J. (2008). The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(1), 39-60.
Jonathan, E. (2008). The influence of religious fundamentalism, right-wing
authoritarianism, and Christian Orthodoxy on explicit and implicit measures of attitudes toward homosexuals. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18(4), 316–329
Jourian, T. J. (2015). Evolving nature of sexual orientation and gender identity. New Directions for Student Services, 2015(152), 11-23.
Kark, R., Waismel-Manor, R., & Shamir, B. (2012). Does valuing androgyny and
femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(3), 620-640.
Keleher, A. G., & Smith, E. (2008, August). Explaining the growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. In annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.
Kite, M., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender Belief Systems: Homosexuality and the Implicit Inversion Theory. Psychology Of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x
Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights a meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 336-353.
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616.
Korn Ferry. (2020). Age and Tenure in the C-Suite. Retrieved from https://ir.kornferry.com/node/16586/pdf.
Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models (Vol. 5). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Liberman, B. E. & Golom, F. D. (2015). Think manager, think male? Heterosexuals’ stereotypes of gay and lesbian managers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 34(7), 566-578. doi: 10.1108/EDI-01-2015-0005
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991). People and organizations, Vol. 1. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Cambridge, MA, US: Unwin Hyman.
MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. (2014). What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education, 40(4), 291-303. doi:
10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4
Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H.D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2011). Sexual orientation bias toward gay men and lesbian women: Modern homonegative attitudes and their association with discriminatory behavioral intentions 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(11), 2573-2599.
Morton, J. W. (2017). Think leader, think heterosexual male? The perceived leadership effectiveness of gay male leaders. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 34(2), 159-169.
Offermann, L. R., & Coats, M. R. (2018). Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(4), 513-522.
Pellegrini, V., De Cristofaro, V., Giacomantonio, M., & Salvati, M. (2020). Why are gay leaders perceived as ineffective? The role of the type of organization, sexual prejudice and gender stereotypes. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109817.
Pew Research Center. (2015). Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/ 29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
Pizer, J., Sears, B., Mallory, C., & Hunter, N. (2012). Evidence of Persistent and
Pervasive Workplace Discrimination Against LGBT People: The Need for Federal Legislation Prohibiting Discrimination and Providing for Equal Employment Benefits. 45 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 715. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2796&context=llr.
Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103.
Rheineck, J. E. (2005). Career decision self-efficacy of lesbians throughout the life span. Adultspan Journal, 4(2), 79-91. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-0029.2005.tb00122.x
Ritter, B. A., & Yoder, J. D. (2004). Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for dominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 187-193.
Romero, A., Baumle, A., Badgett, M., & Gates, G. (2007). Census Snapshot. The Williams Institute. Retrieved from
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/WisconsinCensus2000Snapshot.pdf
Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 221–235. doi:10.1037/a0018204
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 629-645.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743-762.
Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2014). Employment discrimination against LGBT people: Existence and impact.
Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), pp.586-626.
APPENDIX A
Description of candidate used in survey (Condition: gay man)
Potential Candidate CEO Position Fortune 500 Company Background Profile
Charles Smith is a multidisciplinary, independent consultant, who holds a Bachelor and Master of Science in International Business Administration. After finishing his studies in 2005, with a minor in marketing, he started his career as a sales representative for a medium sized company. Through his quick learning and excellent results, he quickly developed into the role of product manager for the same firm, where he worked for five years. His career continued at another Fortune 500 company, where he was sent to multiple locations and where he learned to speak fluent Spanish, German and French in addition to English.
Charles has spent four years as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) at a Fortune 500 company, after which he decided to use his diversified knowledge to act as an independent consultant for other Fortune 500 companies. He has been doing this successfully for the past three years. His clients are high profile and operate in several industries such as the food and beverage, healthcare and technology industry.
