Female versus Male CEOs: How are their Leadership Styles Portrayed? A content analysis of the portrayal of female and male CEOs on business magazines
Sissi Soraiz Gonzalez 11764015
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Corporate Communication Science
Mark Boukes February 1st, 2019
Abstract
The present study examined how the top-ranked female CEOs on the Fortune 500 list are portrayed by the most read business magazines compared to the top-ranked male CEOs from the same list. Previous research and theories were used to show that there are differences in the way journalists describe professionals depending on their gender. Through a content analysis the researcher tested (1) if journalists focus more on the female CEO's personal traits, discussing their appearance and background rather than their performance, (2) if female CEOs are treated as a novelty, (3) whether journalists associate female CEOs with the communal leadership
prototype dimensions while male CEOs with the agentic, and (4) if the way CEOs are portrayed violates their gender prescription. The study suggests that even in the corporate field, where the top-ranked female CEOs of the Fortune 500 list, who already proved to be equally competent and successful leaders as male CEOs by being on the same list, are still generally portrayed in the media in more traditional and stereotypical roles.
Introduction
Economics and organizational behavior researchers have documented lower salaries and fewer promotion opportunities for women. Bertrand and Hallock (2001) used the ExecuComp dataset—which contains information on the five highest-paid executives in each of a large number of U.S. firms for the years 1992-97—to examine the gender compensation gap among high-level executives. These authors found that females, who only represented about 2.5% of the sample, earned about 45% less than males; this was explained by the fact that women were less likely to reach the rank of CEO. These patterns for promotion are similar in other high-skilled professions. Azmat and Ferrer (2017) found that in the legal profession, there are also significant gender gaps in performance among high-skilled professionals in the United States, concluding that these gaps have substantial consequences for promotion.
In Bloomberg Magazine, Green (2018) recently published an article with the headline “Indra Nooyi’s Pepsi Exit Means Another Female CEO Replaced by a Man” (Green, 2018). In this article, the male journalist discussed PepsiCo’s CEO transition and declared that “when a woman CEO steps down, there’s usually a man waiting to fill her shoes” (Green, 2018). Currently, among Fortune 500 companies, only 25 employ female CEOs (Abadi, 2018). This means that less than 5 percent of CEOs are women, and the majority of these companies have a man serving as president or chief operating officer, which is the most likely source for successors (Green, 2018). Another article from Forbes Magazine has the headline “Mary Barra Is Running GM with a Tight Fist and an Urgent Mission” (Muller, 2018). In this article, the female author discussed the “masculine” leadership style of Mary Barra, CEO of General Motor. Evidence has shown that in order to be successful, female CEOs should demonstrate a combination of
Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008; Vinkenburg, Van Engen, Eagley, & Johannesen-Schimdt, 2011). In other words, female CEOs should act like a man if they want to advance in their careers. These headlines raise the question whether female CEOs are being portrayed in business magazines in a way that affects their career. It has been proven that when individuals violate gender
prescriptions, they can suffer reprisals that undermine their social influence and financial health (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Specially, Rudman and Phelan found that these reprisals can
undermine women at every stage of their career, including promotion considerations. In order to examine whether women are being portrayed in way that may have negative consequences for their career advancement, the following overall research question will be investigated:
How are the top-ranked female CEO on the Fortune 500 list portrayed by the most read business magazines compared to the top-ranked male CEO on the same list?
Many researchers have explored the motives for gender gaps in workplace promotions, particularly among high-skilled workers, but these are still unclear, and it is important to determine whether media influence is one of these motives. Previous scholars have highlighted the power that journalists have in shaping public perceptions and ideas of the reality that female CEOs face and the leadership styles that they use. The “glass ceiling,” which is defined as an unbreakable barrier that women face at some point in their careers, is a result of gender stereotypes and the expectations that these produce about what women are like and how they should behave (Omran, Alizadeh, & Esmaeeli, 2015). Through this paper, the researcher will examine four different portrayals of female CEOs that could negatively impact their career advancement. First, the researcher will evaluate whether journalists focus more on the female
CEOs’ personal traits like physical appearance than on their actual performance when compared to male CEOs. Evidence on coverage of political candidates and professional athletes has shown that journalists focus more on women’s appearance and on men’s performance, suggesting that this is likely to be the case in the corporate field (Devitt, 2002; Eagleman, 2015). Because performance is more important for promotion than appearance, this may represent an obstacle to advancement in female CEOs’ career progression. The second form of negative portrayal
involves treating women as novelty. Research has found that politics is treated by the media as a male-oriented field, where female politicians are either treated as novelty or framed within typical stereotypes of femininity (Ibroscheva & Raicheva-Stover, 2009) Since female CEOs are a minority in the corporate field as well, it is likely to occur. The third form involves leadership stereotypes. Generally, individuals tend to stereotype men leadership styles as agentic and determined to master, while women are stereotyped as communal, selfless, and concerned with others (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Heilman, 2001; Johnson et al., 2008). Journalists have repeatedly portrayed female CEOs using gender stereotypes about their leadership styles. Eagly,
Johannesen-Schmidt, and Van Engen (2003) found that gender stereotypes about leadership styles are likely to influence hiring and promotional decisions because women are perceived to be less competent, ambitious, and competitive (i.e., less agentic) than men. Thus, women may be overlooked for leadership positions unless they present themselves as atypical women (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). As a result, gender stereotypes represent a threat to women’s professional advancement, and should be examined further. Lastly, the researcher will examine whether female CEOs are portrayed using leadership styles according to their gender role (Eagly et al., 2003; Rudman, 1998). As mentioned before, researchers have found that in order to be perceived as competent and liked by others, female CEOs should demonstrate a combination of sensitivity
and strength, while male leaders only need to show strength (Johnson et al., 2008; Vinkenburg et al., 2011).
Theoretical Background Stereotypes
McGarty, Yzerbyt, and Spears (2002) defined stereotypes as (a) aids to explanation, (b) energy-saving devices, and (c) shared group beliefs. The first definition suggests that stereotypes form to aid the perceiver to understand a particular situation. The second definition indicates that stereotyping decreases effort on the part of the reader, while the third definition indicates that stereotypes are formed in line with prior approved views or norms of a social group. Hayes (2011) defined stereotyping as the assignment of “identical characteristics to any person in a group regardless of the actual variation among members of that group.” This definition also supports the idea that stereotypes are energy-saving devices because they avoid dealing with “the actual variations” of different social groups.
Block and Crawford (2013) stated that “people exhibit gender stereotyping when they assign traits, behaviors, and roles to individual men and women on the basis of gender”.
Stereotypes may affect the way that members of one group treat another; this, in turn, may lead to changes in the behavior of the stereotyped group (McGarty et al., 2002). Among the most pervasive and well-established stereotypes are the beliefs about the attributes of men and women (Hayes, 2011). Gender stereotypes act as normative expectancies that contain both descriptive and prescriptive elements (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Descriptive beliefs pertain to typical traits, while prescriptive beliefs relate to their ideal or desirable features (Eagly & Karau, 2002;
men do behave, while prescriptive gender stereotypes refer to beliefs regarding how they should behave.
Gender and Journalism
According to Steiner (2017), research on gender and journalism can be divided into two categories: (a) representations of women and (b) gender in newsrooms, including opportunities or inequities in jobs, promotions, and salaries, as well as sexism. In order to understand why gender stereotypes are used in media, it necessary to look into the initial phase that is why journalists produce news media using them. In the social construction of reality process,
individuals build their world experience according to the set of experiences across their life and mostly from three other sources of knowledge: friends, institutions and the media (Alitavoli & Kaveh, 2018). The media, therefore, play a vital role in shaping public perceptions and ideas. Individuals adapt their worldviews and values concerning gender stereotypes, political views, and body images through repeated mass media exposure (Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994). Armstrong (2014) found that women are generally portrayed in the media in more traditional and stereotypical roles. As individuals, journalists may adapt this worldviews and values in gender stereotypes in order to influence their portrayals of female and male CEOs.
The fact that there are more male than female journalists may also influence the way that female CEOs are portrayed. The American Society of News Editors (ASNE, 2014) found that women constituted 37.2% of all U.S. newsroom employees (ASNE, 2014). Thus, media outlets remain “dominated by male voices and male perspectives” (WMC, 2015). Women continue to be prominent in low-status media outlets that produce “soft news” such as human-interest stories and features, while men are more prominent in the production of political and business news (Steiner, 2017). Researchers have concluded that the author’s gender affects how news stories
are researched, sourced, framed, and written (Armstrong, 2014). The portrayal of female CEOs in business magazines, therefore, may be influenced by the fact that male journalists are the leading producers of business news.
Another reason why journalists produce news using stereotypes about leadership styles may be to save time. Steiner (2017) noted that the character of gender as socially—not
biologically—constructed is what makes the gendered aspects of journalism significant; the various media define and dramatize what women and men can do and be in society. These definitions of what women and men can do are defined stereotypes because they have been formed in line with prior approved views or norms (McGarty et al., 2002). As a result, journalists may use these stereotypes to save time and effort by ignoring detailed information that is
associated with the CEO.
A variety of gender issues continue to characterize journalism (Steiner, 2017). The way that journalists portray female CEOs’ leadership styles using stereotypes may represent a barrier for their promotion, as gender stereotypes about leadership styles may have an impact on who is hired and promoted (Agars, 2004). Gender researchers have repeatedly found that males are portrayed within media differently than females (Armstrong, 2014). In this work, the researcher is interested in analyzing how the media portrays female and male CEOs’ in business magazines. Specifically, the researcher aims to determine whether these magazines describe female CEOs as having different personal characteristics and as engaging in different kinds of leadership
behaviors than male CEOs. Forbes, Fortune, and Bloomberg Businessweek magazines are currently the most read business magazines globally, with large circulations of approximately one million, and therefore represent the industry´s main outlet (The Daily Records, 2018). These publications tend to have detailed articles about CEOs (Hannah & Zatzick, 2008) and provide
detailed and intuitive knowledge that is used to make significant decisions regarding business approaches and methods that lead to success. Thus, these business magazines are appropriate to analyze the current portrayals of CEOs.
Through a content analysis, Hannah and Zatzick (2008) found that business magazines portrayed successful leaders as having specific personal characteristics and engaging in certain kinds of behaviors. These scholars identified four broad categories of codes, including: (a) leader background, (b) leader personal traits, (c) leader behaviors/actions, and (d) outcomes. These authors, however, did not pay attention to gender stereotypes or leadership styles. These four categories will be used to analyze business magazine´s portrayal of female and male CEOs’ and their leadership styles.
Personal Traits Versus Performance
In the context of politics, Devitt (2002) found that daily newspaper reporters in 1998 treated female and male gubernatorial candidates equitably in terms of the quantity of coverage, but noted that readers were more likely to read about a female candidate's personal traits, such as her appearance or personality, and were more likely to read about a male candidate's stand or record on public policy issues. Likewise, Eagleman (2015) examined the differences between media portrayals of male and female gymnasts in the U.S. media coverage of the 2012 London Olympic Games, concluding that females remain infantilized and stereotyped, and that more attention is given to their physical appearance than to their actual athletic performances. In both fields, when journalists write about women, they focus more on their appearance than their performance—suggesting that this is likely to be the case in the corporate field as well. Performance is the major determinant of hiring and promotion decisions because it is closely
related to high productivity, one of the main organizational goals in the corporate field (Chung & Leung, 1988). Because performance is more important for promotion than appearance, this may represent an obstacle for advancement in a woman’s career. Using Hannah and Zatzick’s (2008) four categories and based on previous findings, it is possible to hypothesize that journalists will associate female CEOs with more personal traits (e.g., background and appearance) and
associate male CEOs with more performance traits (e.g., numerical and non-numerical outcomes).
H1: Business magazines will associate female CEOs with more personal traits (background and appearance) while male CEOs will be associated with more performance traits (numerical and non-numerical outcomes).
Female Minority
Furthermore, Ibroscheva and Raicheva-Stover (2009) found that politics is treated by the media as a male-oriented field, where female politicians are either treated as novelty or framed within typical stereotypes of femininity. A similar conclusion was reached by Banwart, Bystrom, and Robertson, (2003) who analyzed the media’ s portrayal of candidates in mixed-gender gubernatorial and U.S. Senate races comparing primary coverage to general election coverage in the year 2000. Their findings show that whereas male candidate–focused articles did not mention the candidate’s gender in either the primary or general election coverage, candidate–focused primary articles general election articles noted female candidates’ gender. Currently, among Fortune 500 companies, only 25 employ female CEOs (Abadi, 2018) meaning that less than 5 percent of CEOs are women. Like in politics, female CEOs are a minority in the corporate world.
Therefore, it can be hypothesized that female CEOs will be treated as novelty like female politicians and journalists will mention their gender more as well.
H2: Business magazines will mention the gender of female CEOs more often than the gender of male CEOs.
Leadership Prototypes
Lord and Emrich (2001) suggested that physical features associated with race, sex, or ethnicity may activate prototypes that impact perceivers’ expectations for male and female leaders. In the same way, as individuals have expectations about how men and women should generally behave, they also have expectations for how male and female leaders should behave by holding specific “leadership prototypes” in mind (Johnson et al., 2008). Individuals tend to stereotype male leadership styles as agentic and determined to master, while stereotyping women as communal, selfless, and concerned with others (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Heilman, 2001; Johnson et al., 2008). Johnson et al. integrated the work on leadership prototypes with that of gender stereotypes of female leaders, using the eight leadership prototype dimensions found in the literature: (a) sensitivity, (b) dedication, (c) tyranny, (d) charisma, (e) attractiveness, (f) intelligence, (g) strength, and (h) masculinity. These authors then tested the extent to which individuals hold differing expectations for male and female leaders, and found that the agentic prototype dimensions (i.e., strong, masculine, and tyrannical) were more strongly endorsed for male leaders, while the communal prototype dimensions (sensitivity) were more endorsed for female leaders (Johnson et al., 2008). These investigators also concluded that there are no
differences in the non-gendered prototype dimensions (i.e., dedication, intelligence, charisma, attractiveness).
Furthermore, Madera, Hebl, and Martin (2007) analysed differences in agentic and communal characteristics in letters of recommendation for men and women for academic positions and whether such differences influenced selection decisions in academia. In line with previous studies the authors found that women were described as more communal and less agentic than men, and go beyond previous reports showing that communal characteristics have a unfavorable link with hiring decisions. These findings are important for the present study since it proves that a negative portrayal may have negative consequences for female´s career
advancement. Like in letters of recommendation, the way female CEOs are being portrayed in business magazines may have a negative effect on the way they are perceived. It is important to examine whether female CEOs are being described in business magazines as agentic and less communal because agency is related to higher status and success in the workplace (Madera, Hebl, & Martin 2007).
Through their work, Madera, Hebl, and Martin (2007) found that the communal prototype dimensions includes characteristics like warmth, good nature, friendliness,
consideration, caring, and understanding (e.g., “The CEO is kind”). Likewise, they also found that the agentic prototype dimensions include characteristics like confidence, skillfulness, competitiveness, power, and capability (e.g., “I think the CEO is skillful”). CEOs using communal behaviors at work include being concerned with the welfare of others (i.e., descriptions of kindness, sympathy, sensitivity, and nurturance), helping others, accepting others’ direction, and maintaining relationships (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). And
CEOs using agency includes descriptions of aggressiveness, assertiveness, independence, and self-confidence (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001).
As mentioned before, individuals adapt worldviews and values in gender stereotypes; therefore, it is possible to assume that journalists have these “leadership prototypes” in mind when writing about leadership styles (Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1994; Johnson et al., 2008). It is likely, therefore, that female and male CEOs will be portrayed in business magazines according to their leadership prototypes.
H3: Business magazines will associate female CEOs more frequently with the communal prototype dimensions than male CEOs.
H4: Business magazines will associate male CEOs more frequently with agentic leadership prototype dimensions than female CEOs.
H5: Business magazines will associate non-gendered leadership prototype dimensions
(dedication, charisma, attractiveness, intelligence) equally for male CEOs and female CEOs.
Role Congruity
Stereotypes suggest not only how men and women do behave (i.e., descriptive), but also how men and women should behave (i.e., prescriptive) (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2001). The prescriptive nature of gender stereotypes also states what women should not do— often leading to penalties for women who do not conform to their respective norm. Rudman and Phelan (2008) noted that women are perceived to be less competent, ambitious, and competitive
(i.e., less agentic) than men; as a result, they may be overlooked for leadership roles unless they present themselves as abnormal women. Researchers have found that in order to be perceived as effective, female CEOs should demonstrate a combination of sensitivity and strength, while male leaders only need to show strength (Johnson et al., 2008; Vinkenburg et al., 2011). This means that women seeking promotion should use both the communal (i.e., sensitivity) and agentic (i.e., strength) leadership prototype dimensions. Yoder (2001) suggested that sensibility acts as a tool to decrease negative repercussions against agentic women (Rudman & Glick, 2001) and to display leadership behaviors that are congruent with the female gender role. The role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders notes that perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to two forms of prejudice: (a) being perceived less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by them. Thus, women seeking promotion should be able to find a balance between agentic and communal behaviors.
The previously mentioned article “Mary Barra Is Running GM with a Tight Fist and an Urgent Mission” (Muller, 2018) may represent a backlash against a female CEO who is
portrayed as agentic and as behaving counter-stereotypically. Backlash effects are defined as social and economic reprisals for behaving counter-stereotypically; these are more problematic for women than for men (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Agentic women risk social and economic reprisals when they behave strongly and confidently because they are a viewed as socially deficient and disliked by both male and female perceivers (Rudman, 1998). Johnson et al. (2008) also found that violating one’s sex role can have substantial impacts on the perceptions of one’s likeability and effectiveness. Based on this evidence, in order to avoid social and
economic reprisals, female CEOs should be portrayed in business magazines as both communal and agentic.
RQ1: To what extent do business magazines associate female CEOs using a combination of the communal prototype dimensions and agentic leadership prototype dimensions?
Scholars have provided evidence that women, in comparison to men, more often lead with effective leadership styles; however, if they are not portrayed according to the CEO’s gender role, this may represent an obstacle for promotion (Eagly et al., 2003; Rudman, 1998). When a female leader fits the group’s idea of the prototypical leader, there is no conflict between the female role and the role of leader (Johnson et al., 2008).
Methods
Design
The research is designed as a quantitative content analysis. Content analysis is a research tool for the objective, precise and quantitative portrayal of the manifest content of
communication (Berelson, 1952, as quoted in Bryman, 2012, p. 290). As such, content analyses are used to systematically and objectively describe communication phenomena. Due to the nature of the research questions asked, and posterior hypotheses formulated, a content analysis was the most convenient research method for the current study. The following sections will give a more detailed outline of the sample, data gathering, and coding procedures, inter-coder
reliability as well as the operationalisation and measurements that were taken in order to test the hypotheses and research question.
The sample was a stratified sample of 40 CEOs in total, 20 females and 20 males. The criteria when selecting CEOs was the top-ranked in the Fortune 500 list. The sample coding material contained three business magazines: Forbes, Bloomberg Businessweek, and Fortune. For each CEO, a selection of the latest three articles published by each of the magazines, mentioning them and their company, was selected. Hence, the sample was representative of the actual and most recent portrayal of each of the CEOs on the most read business magazines. Initially, a total of 360 articles were supposed to be coded (i.e., 40 CEOs × 3 magazines × 3 articles): 180 articles about female CEOs and 180 articles about male CEOs. For one of the male CEOs, there were no articles published mentioning him and his company in any of the
magazines; so, the CEO was replaced with the next one on the Fortune 500 list. For three female CEOs1, the articles published in the magazines were not enough, and it was not possible to replace them since the few next ones on the Fortune 500 list did not have enough articles mentioning them and their company either. So, in total 12 articles of female CEOs were non-existent leaving us a final sample of 348 articles. Table 1 lists the CEOs that were sampled for this research, including their company. The articles were retrieved in a period from August 1, 2018 to December 15, 2018. All research units are made available at Open Science Forum2.
Table 1
1
Beth Ford – not 9 but only 6 articles available, Anna Manning - 6 articles available; and Mary Laschinger – only 3 articles available.
2
OSF Storage (Germany-Frankfurt) Link to data-set:
Procedure
After an initial draft of the codebook, the researcher collected small samples of test data (n= 36) to conduct pre-tests in order to assess the applicability of the codebook and to establish how long coding the articles would take. Inter-coder reliability results of the first pre-test showed that the codebook was not entirely reliable yet and that the coding assistant needed more training in order to use the codebook as intended. After a second and third pre-test, the researcher was satisfied with the codebook (Appendix B) and inter-coder reliability scores. All coding took place between the 10th and 24th of December 2018. The researcher coded 384 research units in total, including the ten percent overlap that was analysed by a coding assistant (in order to calculate intercoder reliability). The researcher used Qualtrics to capture the data digitally and downloaded the statistical data in SPSS-format once all units had been coded. Inter-coder Reliability
Ten percent of the sample was double-coded and the inter-coder reliability was tested using the ‘Macro Krippendorff’s alpha’ (see Table 1 in Appendix A for results). The dataset for the inter-coder reliability test contains a sample of articles (n = 36) from the original main sample. To establish inter-coder reliability these articles were coded by two coders: the principal investigator and coding assistant (i.e., Ruben van Middendorp). All variables are reliable (𝛼 >. 60). Percent agreement, Cohen’s kappa, and Krippendorff’s alpha were all used to assess inter-coder reliability for each variable coded. For the coding of a variable to be considered reliable, it was required a Krippendorff’s of .70 or higher.
Measures
CEO. This variable was measured by coding the CEOs name (V04) with its
corresponding code number ranging from 1 to 40 (see Table 1). CEOs 1-20 were females and CEOs 21-40 were male. There was no variation between coders for this variable, making it highly reliable. For better analysis, this variable was recoded into a new variable that only indicated whether the unit was from a female (1) or male (2) CEO.
Background and Personal Traits. On the basis of Hannah and Zatzick’s (2008) categories, leader background and leader personal traits, this variable was operationalised with four items: We coded whether (1) or not (0) the unit contained information on the CEOs
education (𝛼 = 1.00, M = 0.07, SD = 0.26), family (𝛼 = 1.00, M = 0.07, SD = 0.25), hometown (𝛼 = 1.00, M = 0.06, SD = 0.24) and appearance (𝛼 = 1.00., M = 0.11, SD = 0.31). The new variable was computed out of the mean of the four items (M = 0.08, SD = 0.20). The extent to which personal traits were present in the unit thus ranged from 0 (not present) to 1 (all elements present).
Performance. On the basis of Hannah and Zatzick’s (2008) outcomes category, this variable was operationalised with four items: We coded whether (1) or not (0) the unit contained information on an outcome that resulted from the leader’s action. The items used where: Positive numerical outcome (𝛼 = .93, M = 0.22, SD = 0.41), positive non-numerical outcome (𝛼 = 1.00, M = 0.46, SD = 0.50), negative numerical outcome (𝛼 = .94, M = 0.24, SD = 0.43), and negative non-numerical outcome (𝛼 = .93, M = 0.27, SD = .44). The new variable was computed out of the mean of the four items (M = 0.30, SD = 0.24). The extent to which a numerical or non-numerical outcome were present in the unit thus ranged from 0 (not present) to 1 (all elements present).
Leadership prototype: Communal. On the basis of Madera, Hebl, and Martin (2007) and Johnson et al., (2008) this variable indicating maintenance of relationships and social functioning was operationalised with five items. We coded whether (1) or not (0) the unit described the CEO using the following communal characteristics. Affection (𝛼 = .94, M = 0.20, SD = 0.40), sensitivity (𝛼 = .92, M = 0.13, SD = 0.33), nature (𝛼 = 1.00, M = 0.14, SD = 0.34), kindness (𝛼 = .85, M = 0.13, SD = 0.34), and interpersonal (𝛼 = .93, M = 0.15, SD = 0.36). The new variable was computed out of the mean of the four items (M = 0.15, SD = 0.26). The extent to which communal characteristics were present in the unit thus ranged from 0 (not present) to 1 (all elements present).
Leadership prototype: Agentic. On the basis of Madera, Hebl, and Martin (2007) and Johnson et al., (2008) this variable indicating goal-achievement and task functioning was operationalised with 9 items. We coded whether (1) or not (0) the unit described the CEO using the following agentic characteristics. Fast-moving (𝛼 = .89, M = 0.15, SD = 0.36), confident (𝛼 = .94, M = 0.35, SD = 0.48), ambitious (𝛼 = .89, M = 0.28, SD = 0.45), tough (𝛼 = .87, M = 0.15,
SD = 0.35), risk-taking (𝛼 = .79, M = 0.12, SD = 0.32), outspoken (𝛼 = .94, M = 0.46, SD = 0.50), innovative (𝛼 = .93, M = 0.18, SD = 0.38), visionary (𝛼 = .94, M = 0.23, SD = 0.42), and strategic (𝛼 = .89, M = 0.36, SD = 0.48). The new variable was computed out of the mean of the four items (M = 0.25, SD = 0.24). The extent to which agentic characteristics were present in the unit, thus, ranged from 0 (not present) to 1 (all elements present).
Leadership prototype: Non-gendered. On the basis of Johnson et al. (2008), this
variable was operationalised with three items: We coded whether (1) or not (0) the unit described the CEO using the following non-gendered characteristics where individuals do not hold
differing expectations for male and female leaders. Intelligence (𝛼 = .89, M = 0.11, SD = 0.36), dedication (𝛼 = .94, M = 0.45, SD = 0.50), and charisma (𝛼 = .92, M = 0.07, SD = 0.25). The new variable was computed out of the mean of the three items (M = 0.21, SD = 0.23). The extent to which non-gendered characteristics were used by the journalists to describe the CEO thus ranged from 0 (not present) to 1 (all elements present).
Gender Mention. This variable was operationalised with a single item, asking whether the research unit mentioned (1) the gender of the CEO or not (2). Inter-coder reliability for the medium variable was extremely high with a Krippendorff’s alpha of 1.
Results Personal Traits Versus Performance Traits
In our first hypothesis, we assumed that business magazines would associate female CEOs with personal traits (background and appearance) while men would be associated with performance (outcomes). The results of the independent samples t-test (see Appendix A, Table 2) show a significant small sized difference between female and male CEOs in the use of
personal traits by business magazines. Business magazines associate more personal traits with female CEOs (M = 0.11, SD = 0.23) compared to male CEOs (M = 0.05, SD = 0.15), t (277.48) = 3.06, p = .002, d = .26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.11]. So, as expected, business magazines tend to
associate personal traits more with female CEOs.
However, the results of the independent samples t-test show no significant difference between female and male CEOs in association with performance. Business magazines associate performance equally for female CEOs (M = 0.30, SD = 0.25) and male CEOs (M = 0.30, SD = 0.23), t (336) = .07, p = .941, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.05]. Therefore, these results partly support H1. Business magazines tend to associate female CEOs more with personal traits compared to male CEOs, but both genders tend to be equally associated with performance on business magazines. Thus, the first part of the hypothesis – stating that business magazines will associate female CEOs with personal traits – is supported, while the second part – stating that men will be more associated with performance - is not supported by our findings.
Leadership Prototypes
In the second hypothesis, we assumed business magazines would associate female CEOs more frequently with the communal prototype dimensions than male CEOs. The results of the independent samples t-test (see Appendix A, Table 3) show a significant small-to-medium sized difference between female and male CEOs in the use of communal prototype dimensions by business magazines. Business magazines associate more communal prototype dimensions with female CEOs (M = 0.21, SD = 0.32) compared to male CEOs (M = 0.09, SD = 0.18), t (261.37) = 3.92, p<.001, d = .38, 95% CI [0.05, 0.17]. So, as expected, business magazines tend to associate the communal prototype dimensions more with female CEOs than with male CEOs.
In the third hypothesis, we assumed business magazines would associate male CEOs more frequently with the agentic leadership prototype dimensions than female CEOs. The independent samples t-test shows a result (see Appendix A, Table 4.) that actually contradicts our expectations: Business magazines associate the agentic leadership prototype dimensions more with female CEOs (M = 0.28, SD = 0.25), compared to male CEOs (M = 0.23, SD = 0.22), t (329.79) = 1.96, p = .050, d = .22, 95% CI [0.0, 0.11]. H3 is thus not supported. Business
magazines do not tend to associate male CEOs more frequently with the agentic leadership prototype dimensions than female CEOs. In fact, the sampled business magazines tended to associate the agentic leadership prototype dimensions more with female CEOs.
In the fourth hypothesis, we assumed business magazines would associate non-gendered leadership prototype dimensions equally for female and male CEOs. The results of the
independent samples t-test (see Appendix A, Table 5) show no significant difference between female and male CEOs in associating them with non-gendered leadership prototype dimensions. Business magazines associate the non-gendered prototype dimensions equally with female CEOs (M = 0.23, SD = 0.24) compared to male CEOs (M = 0.19, SD = 0.22), t (346) = 1.45, p = .147, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.18]. As we did not find any significant differences, H4 is supported. Business magazines associate non-gendered leadership prototype dimensions equally for male CEOs and female CEOs.
Gender Mention
In the fifth hypothesis, we assumed business magazines would mention the CEOs gender more frequently for female than for male CEOs. The results of the independent samples t-test (see Appendix A, Table 6) show a significant medium-to-large difference between female and male CEOs in mentioning the CEOs gender. Business magazines mention more the female CEOs
gender (M = 0.27, SD = 0.44) compared to male CEOs (M = 0.01, SD = 0.11), t (184.45) = 7.35, p < .001, d = .58, 95% CI [0.19, 0.33]. So, as expected, business magazines tend to mention the CEOs gender more for female than for male CEOs.
Role Congruity
The research question asked to what extent business magazines associate female CEOs with a combination of communal and agentic leadership prototype dimensions. To answer this question, the previously computed scale variables, Communal and Agentic, where recoded into binary variables. For both, we coded (1) when the value was above zero—meaning the prototype was present in one way or the other —and (0) when the value equaled zero meaning the
prototype was completely absent. Afterwards, a new variable was computed as a sum of these two binary variables where it was coded (0) when no prototype was present, (1) when only one of the prototypes was present, and (2) when both prototypes where present. With this new variable, it was possible to analyze when both prototype dimensions where present throughout the sampled articles.
The results of the cross-tabulation show a marginally significant difference between female and male CEOs in associating them with both leadership prototype dimensions (γ = .175, p = .068,). For female CEOs, both communal and agentic leadership prototype dimensions where more present together (34.50%) than for male CEOs (21.10%). Male CEOs, by contrast, were more often associated with just one prototype dimension (66.10%) compared to female CEOs (50.60%). And lastly, it was more common for female CEOs that no prototype dimension was present at all (14.90%) compared to male CEOs (12.80%). The answer to the research question, is that only in one third of the cases, female CEOs are associated with both communal and agentic prototype dimensions simultaneously.
Discussion
The present study examined three different portrayals of female and male CEOs in business magazines that could negatively impact their career advancement. Previous research and theories were used to show that in fact there are differences in the way journalists describe CEOs in business magazines depending on their gender. The researcher analysed (1) if
journalists focus more on the female CEO's personal traits, discussing their appearance and background rather than their performance, (2) if female CEOs are treated as a novelty, (3) whether journalists associate female CEOs with the communal leadership prototype dimensions while male CEOs with the agentic, and (4) if the way CEOs are portrayed violates their gender prescription.
Personal Traits versus Performance
A series of recent studies have indicated that newspapers report personal information about women more frequently compared to men, including attire, appearance, and marital or parental status. By contrast, men are more likely to be identified by their occupation, experience, or accomplishments (Devitt, 2002). With this in mind, the present study tested if this also
occurred in business magazines. As assumed, our results show journalists tend to associate female CEOs with more personal traits (i.e., background and appearance) while male CEOs with more with performance traits (i.e., numerical and non-numerical outcomes). A similar pattern of results was obtained in coverage of political candidates and professional athletes (Devitt, 2002; Eagleman, 2015). Like in other fields, results show media portrayals continue to rely heavily on traditional gender conventions, which do not allow for a well-rounded and thoughtful analysis of
the role of women (Ibroscheva & Raicheva-Stover, 2009). It represents a problem for female CEOs since discussing their children or clothes portrays them in the traditional housewife role instead of their current position as a CEO. Hwang (2015) found that the rapid improvement in women’s economic status creates a gap between the women’s role that men grew up observing (housewife role) and the role that the new generation of educated women chooses to take. Although the present study did not hypothesize an interaction between the gender of the
journalist and the portrayal, the gap is present and has negative consequences for females’ career advancement since performance is the most important determinant for promotion (Chung & Leung 1988). Additionally, individuals who read business magazines are seeking information on the best business practices and being up-to-date in all the business world decisions so,
information on background and appearance does not fit the kind of content they are looking for and, therefore, becomes irrelevant.
On the other hand, findings suggest there is no difference between female and male CEOs in association with performance traits. This could be because, as mentioned before, individuals who read business magazines are seeking information on companies and CEOs performance; so, not including this information would make the article pointless. Specifying the gender of the CEO in the article was also analysed. As expected, results show that journalists mentioned the gender significantly more (i.e., 3.19 times more often) when writing about females compared to males. Here, results are consistent with Banwart, Bystrom, and Robertson (2003), since they also found this phenomenon for female candidates in election coverage. Mentioning the gender more frequently for females may be explained by the fact that, like in politics, they are seen as the “other” since they are still a minority. And therefore, supports the
status quo of male CEOs as a norm and female CEOs as a novelty (Ibroscheva and Raicheva-Stover, 2009).
Leadership Prototypes and Role Congruity
Stereotypically, women are frequently perceived as communal to be less competent, ambitious, and competitive (i.e., less agentic) than men, and they may be excluded for leadership positions unless they present themselves as abnormal women. Based on literature, it was
assumed journalists would associate the communal leadership prototype dimension more with female CEOs, while the agentic more with the males, and that there would be no differences in the association with the non-gendered prototype dimensions (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Heilman, 2001; Johnson et al., 2008). Results show that journalists associated the leadership prototype dimensions as predicted except for the agentic prototype. Contrary to what was expected, the sampled articles tend to associate the agentic leadership prototype dimensions more with female CEOs instead of males. This may be because agency is expected from male CEOs, so journalists do not feel the need to describe them with agentic characteristics, but journalists do feel the need to use these agentic characteristics when writing about female CEOs since it is not expected from them. It was essential to examine whether women are being described in business magazines as agentic because agency is related to higher status and success in the workplace (Madera, Hebl, and Martin 2007).
Since researchers have found that in order to be perceived as competent, female CEOs should demonstrate a combination of sensitivity and strength, (Johnson et al., 2008; Vinkenburg et al., 2011), we analysed to what extent do business magazines associate female CEOs with a combination of the communal and agentic leadership prototype dimensions. It is important to
highlight the fact that women face a complicated situation they cannot escape because of contradictory rules. The need to avoid female stereotypes in order to be perceived as competent leaders and the negative reactions (i.e., backlash effects; Rudman, 1998) towards female agency and authority (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Results show females are associated with both
prototypes in only 34.5% of the cases. This finding represents a negative portrayal for female CEOs since it has been proven that when individuals break gender prescriptions, they can suffer reprisals that undermine their social influence and career advancement (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). Female CEOs are only being portrayed in a way that does not violate gender
prescriptions and as competent leaders in one-third of the sampled articles. Despite the fact that male CEOs also experience backlash effects for disconfirming masculine stereotypes, they are not required to do so in order to advance their careers (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). So, being portrayed in a way that disconfirms stereotypes is more problematic for female than male CEOs.
This research not only has important implications for female CEOs but also for women in different management and leadership roles since previous scholars have highlighted the power that journalists have in shaping public perceptions. Such results are particularly important because business magazines represent the industry´s main outlet (Hannah & Zatzick, 2008) and provide detailed and intuitive knowledge that is used to make significant decisions regarding business decisions and methods that lead to success. The findings suggest that, although the portrayal of female and male CEOs was relatively consistent across most categories of analysis, female CEOs continue to face some stereotypical biases and disadvantage compared to male CEOs.
As with any study, the research design faced some limitations that are worth mentioning as they could serve as an explanation as to why some of the hypotheses were not supported. When using content analysis, issues frequently arise when the goal is to impute latent rather than manifest content. Within this study, the purpose was to measure personality traits such as
‘sensitivity’ and ‘kindness’, which are latent constructs that might increase the potential of invalid presumptions made. It is common that coding manuals may cause some interpretation on the part of coders, with this in mind, several pre-coding tests were conducted to avoid this from happening. Another obstacle worth considering when using a content analysis is the implicit trade-off of internal validity for reliability. Not only the variables for the communal prototype but also the agentic prototype and non-gendered prototype, were operationalised in a way that would be most reliable (i.e., inter- and intra-coder reliability) and replicable. This, however, may have limited the accuracy and exhaustiveness (i.e., validity) of these measures. External validity, more specifically the generalisability of our results, is limited by the composition of our sample. Some CEOs were mentioned in more articles than others, especially comparing female and male CEOs. Due to the sampling method, the period covered by the articles per CEO thus varied: In some cases, all 9 articles were from the same month, and in others, they were published over the span of a year. This could have skewed the results by not showing the most recent leadership style of some of the CEOs.
Further research could also examine, whether the gender of the journalist is associated with the use of stereotypical portrayals. Finally, another promising line of research would be to conduct a survey to gain more insight into why journalists use prototype dimensions differently for female and male CEOs. In order to understand why gender stereotypes are used in media, it necessary to look into the initial phase that is why journalists produce news media using them.
The presence of gender-biased portrayals of female CEOs sheds light to the fact that journalists become universally socialized in the conventions of the profession (McQuail, 2005). Female CEOs are placed in a disadvantage because journalists do their jobs without critically
considering or questioning the harmful effect of using gender stereotyping portrayals. The study at hand proves that even in the corporate field, where the top-ranked female CEOs of the Fortune 500 list, who already proved to be equally competent and successful leaders as male CEOs by being on the same list, are still generally portrayed in the media in more traditional and stereotypical roles.
References
Abadi, M. (2018, August 13). There are only 25 women CEOs in the Fortune 500: Here's the full list. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/fortune-500-companies-women-ceos-2018-8?international=true&r=US&IR=T
Agars, M. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of gender stereotypes on the advancement of women in organizations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 103−111.
Alexander, D., & Andersen, K. (1993). Gender as a factor in the attribution of leadership traits. Political Research Quarterly, 46(3), 527–45
Alitavoli, R., & Kaveh, E. (2018). The U.S. media’s effect on public’s crime expectations: A cycle of cultivation and agenda-setting theory. Societies, 8(3), 58.
doi:10.3390/soc8030058
Armstrong, C. L. (2004). The influence of reporter gender on source selection in newspaper stories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 135-154.
doi:10.1177/107769900408100110
Bakker-Pieper, A., & de Vries, R. E. (2013). The incremental validity of communication styles over personality traits for leader outcomes. Human Performance, 26(1), 1-19.
doi:10.1080/08959285.2012.736900
Banwart, M. C., Bystrom, D. G., & Robertson, T. (2003). From the Primary to the General Election. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(5), 658-676.
doi:10.1177/0002764202238491
Berger, L. P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
Bystrom, D. G. (2006). Advertising, web sites, and media coverage: Gender and communication along the campaign trail. In S. J. Carroll and R. L. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Bystrom, G., Robertson, T. A., & Banwart, M. C. (2001). Framing the fight: An analysis of media coverage of female and male candidates in primary races for governor and Senate in 2000. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 1999–2013.
Eagleman, A. N. (2015). Constructing gender differences: Newspaper portrayals of male and female gymnasts at the 2012 Olympic Games. Sport in Society, 18(2), 234-247. doi:10.1080/17430437.2013.854509
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard University Business School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 573−598.
Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569−591.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Physiology, 46(4), 735-754. Ensari, N., & Murphy, S. E. (2003). Cross-cultural variations in leadership perceptions and
attribution of charisma to the leader. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1), 52−66.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Connaughton, S. L. (2014). Leadership: A communicative perspective. Leadership, 10(1), 7-35.
Gerbner, G. (1973). Cultural indicators: The third voice. In Communications technology and social policy. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The mainstreaming of America: Violence profile no 11. Journal of Communication, 30(1), 10-29
Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1994). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects. Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, J. (2018, August 6). Indra Nooyi’s Pepsi exit means another female CEO replaced by a man. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-06/nooyi-s-pepsi-exit-means-another-female-ceo-replaced-by-a-man.
Hannah, D. R., & Zatzick, C. D. (2008). An examination of leader portrayals in the U.S. business press following the landmark scandals of the early 21st century. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 361-377.
Hayes, D. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait. Politics & Gender, 7(1), 133-165.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674.
Ibroscheva E., & Raicheva-Stover, M. (2009). Engendering Transition: Portrayals of Female Politicians in the Bulgarian Press. The Howard Journal of Communications. 20:2, 111-128, doi: 10.1080/10646170902869429
Johnson K. S., 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. Kittilson, M. C., & Fridkin, K. (2008). Gender, candidate portrayals, and election campaigns: A
comparative perspective. Politics and Gender, 4, 371–392.
Madera, J., Hebl, M. (., & Martin, R. (2007). Gender and letters of recommendation: Agentic and communal differences. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e518532013-658
McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, Y. V., & Spears, R. (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Mead, J. (1997). Bodyjamming: Sexual harassment, feminism, and public life. Milson Point,
New South Wales, Australia: Vintage.
McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory. London: Sage Publications. Neyman, J. (1934). On the two different aspects of the representative method: The method of
stratified sampling and the method of purposeful selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 97(4), 558-625.
Ogles, R. M. (1987). Cultivation analysis: Theory, methodology, and current research on
television influenced construction of social reality. Mass Communications Review, 14(1), 43–53.
Omran, M. S., Alizadeh, H., & Esmaeeli, B. (2015). The analysis of glass ceiling phenomenon in the promotion of women’s abilities in organizations. Journal of Organizational
Leadership, 4, 315-323.
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 629-645.
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743−762.
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61−79.
Schutz, A. (1967). The phenomenology of the social world. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Vinkenburg, C. J., Van Engen, M. L., Eagley, A. H., & Johannesen-Schimdt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10-21.
Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815−828.
Appendix A. Statistical Results Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Appendix B. Codebook
I. Registration unit
There are three types of registration units for this research: Forbes, Bloomberg Businessweek and Fortune. An article from each magazine will be selected where the CEO or their company is mentioned. For each CEO, a purposive selection of the latest three articles published by each of the magazines, mentioning them or their company, will be selected. Hence, the sample will be representative of the actual and most recent leadership style of each of the CEOs portrayed on the most read business magazines. In total 360 articles will be coded, 180 articles about female CEOs and 180 articles about male CEOs.
II. Coding Material and Population
The research units will be taken from the top 3 business magazines mentioned before. Table 1 lists the CEOs that were sampled for this research, including their company. The articles were retrieved in a period from August 1, 2018 to December 15, 2018. All research units are available if requested.
III. General coding rule
1. Every code refers to the entire article (unit of analysis). 2. Please read the entire article first in order to get an overview.
3. Information for coders (coding instructions) are indicated in the codebook. Please read instructions carefully as they will provide important information to make the right coding decisions.
IV. Research Questions and Hypotheses
In order to address the posed question as to how business magazines portray leadership styles from female CEOs compared to male CEOs, the following research question and hypotheses are presented:
RQ: How are the leadership styles of the top-ranked 20 female CEO on the Fortune 500 list portrayed by the most read business magazines compared to the top-ranked 20 male CEO from the same list?
H1: Business magazines will associate female CEOs with background and personal characteristics while men will be associated with actions and outcomes.
H2: Business magazines will mention the gender of female CEOs more often than the gender of male CEOs.
H3: Business magazines will associate female CEOs more frequently with the communal prototype dimensions (sensitivity) than male CEOs.
H4: Business magazines will associate male CEOs more frequently with agentic leadership prototype dimensions (strength, masculinity, tyranny) than female CEOs.
H5: Business magazines will associate non-gendered leadership prototype dimensions (dedication, charisma, attractiveness, intelligence) equally for male CEOs and female CEOs.
RQ1: To what extent do business magazines associate female CEOs using a combination of the communal prototype dimensions (sensitivity) and agentic leadership prototype dimensions (strength).
V. Structure of the Codebook
In order to assure accuracy, the codebook is strategically structured. The first section contains six variables that have general information about the article given. The following section are variables about personal traits and performance. The third section contains variables about the three leadership prototypes: Communal, agentic, and non-gendered. And the final section contains a variable asking if the gender of the CEO is mentioned.
Variables
1. General Information V1. Coder
Code the number corresponding to your name. 1 – Sissi
2- Ruben V2. Source
Code the source of the article. 1. Forbes
2. Bloomberg 3. Fortune
V2. Number of the article
Code the number given to the article (e.g., Barra_Bloomberg_1. --> the article number is 1) 1.
2. 3.
V4. Name of the CEO
Every CEO has been given a consecutive number (file name). Code this number. 1 – Mary Barra
2 – Gail Bourdreaux 3 – Ginni Rometty 4 – …
Every CEO has been given a consecutive number (file name). Code this number. 1 – Female
2 – Male
V6. Gender of Journalist
Code, the gender of the author based on the name. If it is not clear or possible code “3”. 1 – Female
2 – Male 3 – Unknown
Codes
1. Personal Traits versus Performance
Background and Appearance
Words in this category include husband, wife, kids, babies, brothers, children, colleagues, dad, family, they, him, and her.
V7. Education
Code, whether the article makes a reference to formal education of the CEO. E.g., graduated with a degree in electrical engineering from what was then called the General Motors Institute, a co-op university program that fed graduates into the company. - Fortune
0 – Not present 1 – Present V8. Family
Code, whether the article makes a reference to family of the CEO. E.g., Her father, Ray Mäkelä, was a diemaker who worked for 39 years in a Pontiac factory. - Fortune
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V9. Hometown
Code, whether the article makes a reference to geographic origins of the CEO. E.g., Barra has GM in her bones. She was born just outside Detroit - Fortune
1 – Present
V10. Appearance
Code, whether the article relates to the physical appearance of the CEO. The article mentions the CEOs age.
E.g. “Barra, sporting a black leather jacket, has a warm if guarded smile.” -Fortune 0 – Not present
1 – Present
Outcomes - Performance
Words in this category included earn, gain, do, know, insight, and think.
V11. Positive Numerical outcome
Code, whether the article shows a numerical indicator that something desired resulted from the leader’s action.
E.g., The fact that GM stock is up 15% since she took over while rival Ford is down 25% in the same period shows how valuable this ability is. - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V12. Positive non-numerical outcome
Code, whether the article shows a non-numerical indicator that something desired resulted from the leader´s action.
E.G., Since she took over, GM is up sharply in this widely followed measure of supply chain collaboration. The company has also managed two straight years of record operating profits. - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V13. Negative numerical outcome
Code, whether the article shows a numerical indicator that something not desired resulted from the leader’s action.
1 – Present
V14. Negative non-numerical outcome
Code, whether the article shows a non-numerical indicator that something desired resulted from the leader´s action.
0 – Not present 1 – Present 2. Leadership Prototypes Communal V15. Affectionate
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as being affectionate or dealing with others or with difficult issues. The CEO as feeling, showing, or expressing sympathy. CEO as showing approval of or favour towards an idea or action.
0 – Not present 1 – Present V16. Sensitive
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as being easily damaged, injured, or distressed by changes.
E.g., Seattle’s Best hasn’t hit $1 billion yet, but it will, Gass insists. And it hasn’t been easy. “I had plenty of sleepless nights.” - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V17. Nurturing
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as caring for and protecting the company and employees. The CEO is shown as giving or ready to give help.
E.g., She comes across as both approachable and extremely protective of GM and its people. - Forbes
E.g., Barra explains. “It’s about creating an environment for collaboration and giving people tools they need to work effectively. How can we make sure you really have a work environment that’s enabling and empowering, instead of constricting?” - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V18. Agreeable
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as charming, funny, relaxed, charismatic, friendly. CEO describes as having or showing a friendly, generous nature. Related adjectives: kind. E.g., “She created an environment that developed “trust with the people we serve,” something that does not come easily in the healthcare industry.” - Fortune
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V19. Interpersonal
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as having the ability to communicate or interact well with other people. The article shows she/he has good relations.
E.g., Barra, whose pre-CEO position encompassed supplier relations, has shown how this applies in the auto industry by driving a big jump in GM’s Working Relations Index score. -
Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
Agentic
V20. Fast-moving
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as having quick initiative to take action. The article mentions a fast response or action the CEO took for a certain crisis or situation. E.g., Barra used the study as a cudgel to accelerate her efforts to change GM from within, and in 2016 she was just starting to see the impact. - Fortune
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V21. Confident
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as having confidence in his/her ability or decisions. As not depending on another person to make decisions. The article mentions a decision the CEO took. E.g., She appointed an independent investigator and named an outsider to review and
approve claims against the company. She fired 15 individuals and instilled a renewed safety focus inside the company. She struck a deal with U.S. prosecutors, who called GM's cooperation (after the problem came to light anyway) "fairly extraordinary." Ultimately 124 deaths were blamed on the faulty switches, and GM paid about $2 billion in fines and settlements. - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V22. Ambitious
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as a hard worker, ambitious, driven to succeed, perseverant, or facing challenges. The article describes the CEO as:
aspiring, determined, forceful, pushy, enterprising, pioneering, progressive, eager, motivated, driven, enthusiastic, energetic, zealous, committed, go-ahead, go-getting, purposeful, assertive, aggressive, hungry, power-hungry.
E.g., Jeff Bezos is using his muscle to try and edge out Microsoft and Apple for the title of the world's most valuable company. -Bloomberg
E.g., Anthem chief executive officer Gail Boudreaux told analysts Wednesday that the insurer has plans to grow its IngenioRx pharmacy benefit management company, but that doesn’t launch until the end of 2019. - Forbes
E.g., “Her role, she says, is to be the company's chief "provocateur"— pushing the boundaries of what's possible.”- Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present V23. Tough
Code, whether the article shows the CEO exercising authority or dominance over company or people in it. As a person who is exercising his/her power over others. The CEO is described as aggressive, dominant, controlling, forceful, tough, demanding, or exhibiting such behaviours. E.g., She can make tough decisions. Barra is proving to be more disciplined than previous GM CEOs, cutting businesses that don't achieve a return on investment of at least 20 percent. -Forbes
E.g., Not only is Barra not going anywhere – she is cementing her power as head of the global automaker. - Forbes
E.g., “Can the century-old sweets seller reach its aggressive growth target? Buck is certainly going to try” -Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V24. Risk-taking
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as someone who likes to gamble or take risks. The article mentions a daring action or risk the CEO took. Related adjectives: Daring
E.g., She has made decisions other GM leaders never dared, like pulling out of Europe to focus on higher-margin operations in North America and China, while investing heavily in new mobility services like shared, autonomous electric vehicles. - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V25. Outspoken
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as someone who is outspoken, straightforward in stating it´s opinions. The article includes a quote from the CEO. E.g., Barra's answer was unequivocal: "I am 150% committed to General Motors. - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present
V26. Innovative
Code, whether the article shows the CEO as innovative, imaginative, revolutionary, unorthodox, unusual. Implementing something creative or original. CEO as someone who is initiating change in the company.
E.g., “She is credited with leading Hershey to make several strategic acquisitions outside its traditional confectionery product, including the purchase of Krave beef jerky.” -Fortune
0 – Not present 1 – Present V27. Visionary
Code, whether the article mentions the CEO has a desired future image of the company or a vision. E.g., “Barra has a vision for the future.” - Forbes
0 – Not present 1 – Present V28. Strategic
