1
WOMEN STRIVING FOR POWER:
THE WAY TO OBTAIN POWER DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF POWER THEY USE
Master Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics & Business
July 2, 2012
ANNA C. W. DRAAIJER S1531395
Hanzeplein 64 9713 GW Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 52 05 76 81 E-mail: a.c.w.draaijer@student.rug.nl
Supervisor/ University
Dr. F. A. Rink/ University of Groningen Co-assessor
Dr. F. Walter
Acknowledgements. I am grateful to my supervisor, Dr. Floor Rink for the advice, support, and useful feedback that helped me to improve my research skills during my master thesis.
Second, I would like to thank Ismaël Achekar for his commitment and assistance. Finally, I
would like to thank my parents and friends for their support during my whole study and in
particular during writing my master thesis.
2
ABSTRACT
This study has been conducted to show what the role of women is nowadays. There will be looked at how it will be possible for women to improve their minority position in working life and climb the power ladder. Several factors will be taken in mind which includes gender stereotypes, the gender of the followers and the type of power that will be used by the leader.
The effect of different power-seeking intentions was researched and it shows a difference between personal, social or no power. There was hypothesized that women who use social power perceive more chance to climb the power ladder than when the openly strive for personal power, or when they do not strive for power. In this 3 (Type of power: Social vs.
personal vs. no power) by 2 (Politician gender: Male vs. Female) experimental research design study, 243 respondents took part who filled in an online questionnaire. It results that women who use social power have most chance to succeed in climbing the power ladder, even more than do men. Another result which has been found is that men and women differ in the way how they judge power seeking-intentions. The thought that women would not be successful when they use personal power needs to be adjusted; they are found to have equal chance to succeed in climbing the power ladder as do men. More importantly they have more advantages when they decide to use social power.
Keywords: Personal Power, Social Power, Leadership, Gender stereotypes, Women
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 3
INTRODUCTION ... 5
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 6
Gender and striving for power ... 6
Gendered stereotypes ... 7
Personal vs. social power ... 8
Gendered leadership beliefs ... 10
Overview of the study ... 11
METHOD ... 11
Design and Participants ... 11
Procedure ... 12
Power Striving Manipulation ... 12
Gender Manipulation ... 13
Dependent Measures ... 14
Agency and Competence. ... 14
Communality and Warmth. ... 14
Moral outrage. ... 14
Voting preference ... 15
Effective leadership... 15
Control Variables ... 15
RESULTS ... 16
Descriptive statistics ... 16
Manipulation checks ... 17
Dependent Measures ... 17
Agency and Competence. ... 18
Communality and warmth. ... 19
Moral outrage. ... 19
Voting preference. ... 20
Effective leadership... 20
4
Supplementary Analyses; Mediation effects... 21
DISCUSSION ... 22
Findings ... 22
Theoretical implications ... 24
Future research directions and limitations ... 25
Summary and practical implications ... 27
REFERENCE LIST ... 28
APPENDIX I Tables ... 32
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Zero-order correlations among the dependent measures. ... 32
Table 2. Means and SDs of the ratings for significant dependent measurement scales divided by gender experiment ... 33
Table 3. Hierarchical regression results for dependent measures... 33
APPENDIX II Figures ... 34
Figure 1. Constructed model for study overview ... 35
Figure 2. Marginal significant results for control variable gender respondent on moral outrage for type of power used. ... 35
Figure 3. Marginal significant results for control variable gender respondent on voting preference for type of power used. ... 36
Figure 4. Marginal significant results for interaction effect type of power x gender leader on control variable communal. ... 36
Figure 5. Significant results on interaction effect type of power x gender leader on control variable voting preference. ... 37
Figure 6. Significant results on interaction effect type of power x gender leader on control variable effective leadership. ... 37
Figure 7. Full mediated model ... 38
5
Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't.
Margaret Thatcher (1925 - )
INTRODUCTION
The world is in an ever-changing movement, and the roles of gender in relation to power holders become more and more important. Who has power, who is affected by power, and how power is acquired provide the foundation for understanding human relations (Russel, 1960). In Europe women are still underrepresented at board levels (Desvaux, Devillard &
Sancier-Sultan, 2010). Research shows that the labor representation of women in the Netherlands is 72% (Merens, van den Brakel, Hartgers & Hermans, 2011). However the representation of women in top management functions shows a considerably different figure:
only 17% of the top management positions are executed by women (Lookeren Campagne, 2011). Being "just like a man" has historically been a price women have had to pay for equality (Healy, 1991). Research into the obstacles that women face in their careers has revealed that gender stereotypes and sexism continue to have a negative impact on the advancement opportunities of women (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009). The numbers clearly demonstrate that despite the increased labor participation of women, gender inequality still exists at the highest board levels of organizations. It is thus important to examine the conditions that facilitate the upward mobility of women in organizations.
That women need to climb the power ladder is not only important for their own intent.
According to Eagly and Carli (2003) organizations too can benefit from their presence at the top, given that women show a different way of leading the organization and with success.
Women managers who have broken through the glass ceiling in medium-sized, nontraditional
organizations demonstrate that effective leadership does not come from one mold. Using the
command-and-control style of managing others, a style generally associated with men in
6
large, traditional organizations, is not the only way to succeed (Rosener, 1990). Yet, at the same time, research also suggests that work associated with masculinity, such as visible, heroic work, is more clearly recognized and rewarded than work associated with femininity like relationship building, and behind-the-scenes work (e.g., building a team, avoiding crises), (Fletcher, 1994). Up to now, it remains unknown whether the different ways in which men and women lead an organization might also contribute to the fact that women are still underrepresented at board level positions. That is, while women may be positively evaluated for their communal leadership skills, these same skills may paradoxically also hinder them from climbing the corporate ladder in the first place. I am interested whether this paradox indeed holds and therefore aim to examine what it is that men and women do differently in their way up, that is, how they exactly strive for power. Thus, what type of power do they use to become powerful within organizations? In answering this question, I am going to contribute to our understanding of how women themselves, as active agents rather than passive victims of organizational systems, can advance their own opportunities.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Gender and striving for power
As can be seen it is still of subject today that women face more inequality at the work
place than men. I believe that it is unnecessary for women to have this dissimilarity role. The
central question in this research paper therefore will be: “How will it be possible for women
to improve their minority position?” My stand in this discussion will be that in women´s
attempt to strive for power it will be important that they use the right type of power.
7
Gendered stereotypes
Sex differences derive from the interaction between the physical specialization of the sexes, especially female reproductive capacity, and the economic and social structural aspects of societies (Wood & Eagly, 2002). Despite that sex differences exist, these differences do not refer to the capabilities required in modern working life today. Still, research consistently shows that it is harder to obtain a powerful position for women than for men, as Helfat, Harris and Wolfson (2006) show only 6 percent of CEOs in the fortune 1000 will be women by 2016. Furthermore unequal pay still exists, in 2009 women in the Netherlands earned on average only 80% of the gross hourly wage of what men earned (Merens, et al., 2011).
Although a woman can have equal capabilities as a man, she is judged differently due to the existence of gendered leadership stereotypes. Masculine leadership characteristics are also called “agentic” leadership styles (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and are defined by a willingness to take risks and being task-oriented. Conversely, feminine leadership characteristics are also called “communal” leadership styles (Eagly and Karau, 2002) and are considered more nurturing, helpful and people-oriented.
Gendered leader stereotypes not only impact the way in which women and men behave in the workplace, such stereotypes can also impact the leadership positions women and men accept (Rink, Ryan and Stoker, 2011). Considerable research has demonstrated that anticipated sex differences (e.g., in intelligence, ambition, and assertiveness) prevent women from being viewed as suitable leaders (Rudman & Glick, 2001). Traditionally the think manager think male association exists, however in times of crisis, when people think that communal traits may be more necessary, women are more wanted (Rink, et al., 2011).
In light of the existence of gendered leader stereotypes, and the barriers that women
face in climbing the corporate ladder, it is important that they make use of the right type of
8
power. In this endeavor, they on the one hand, need to show their ambitions to the environment. On the other hand, this is in contrast with the communal stereotype and gendered role expectations (Moskowitz, Suh & Desalniers, 1994). It is suggested that disconfirming your gender stereotype will help to improve your career position, and therefore women should act more like men (Wiley & Eskilson, 1985). The reverse side of this effect is that women who do so are not liked, because they violate the prescriptive aspect of female gender stereotypes (i.e., what women should be); in particular, that women ought to be communal (i.e., kind, thoughtful, and sensitive to others’ feelings). Because women are held to a higher standard of niceness than men, agentic women may be viewed as competent but insufficiently feminine and experience a backlash effect (Rudman & Glick, 2001) .
When women strive too far in obtaining power the reverse side will arise. How do women strive for power and how does it influence their chances of success? It seems like there is no right way for women on how to obtain power. When they confirm their stereotype it is suggested that they will not climb the power ladder, however when they do act in a disconfirming way they will be seen as not feminine enough and people will respond quite negative to this behavior. What will be the solution for this? I argue that their way to the top may, in part, be determined by how they strive for power.
Personal vs. social power
People who have power think and act differently from people who lack it (Kipnis,
1972). However power can be used in different ways. When it comes to gaining more control
over others, a distinction can be made between two types of power: personal power and social
power. Personal power is the influence over others, the source of which resides in the person
instead of being vested by the position he or she holds. Importantly, this type of power thus
holds being personally independent. It means the ability to do and get what you want, without
9
being influenced by others (Emerson, 1962). For example a photographer who works independently on his pictures. People who experience a substantial amount of personal power are unconstrained by others. According to Lammers, Stoker & Stapel (2009) people with a lot of personal power will be less inclined to spend the extra effort to individuate and make sense of others, they will rely on automatic cognition, since personal power means freedom of others. Social power, on the other hand, is the degree of influence that an individual or organization has among their peers and within their society as a whole, so to say power over other people. The social power of a person or business often results in it being copied by others, and such power can typically be credited to the level of the skill, knowledge, information or fame that they possess in a desirable area of expertise (French & Raven, 1959).
Social power means the ability of a person to influence others and make them do things they would not do otherwise (Weber, 1978). For this type of power can be thought of an army officer which gives leading to his troops. As such, social power is associated with interdependence rather than with independence (Parsons, 1967).
Describing these types of power it can be said that openly striving for social or personal power can have different effects for women. I argue that for women to climb the power ladder it is more desirable to use social power to gain influence than personal power. Since in this way they disconfirm the management stereotype that leaders find power important primarily to satisfy their own need for autonomy (Brenner, Tomkiewicz & Schein, 1989). Rather, they strive for power to use it in a more social way that fits the female stereotype. Would women use personal power then their behavior is probably contradicting gendered leadership roles (Galinsky, Gruenfeld & Magee, 2003). In sum, the following hypothesis can be stated:
H1: Women receive more chance to climb the power ladder when they openly strive
for social power than when they openly strive for personal power, or when they do not
strive for power.
10
Gendered leadership beliefs
Vecchio and Boatwright (2002) argue that employees gender is relevant for leadership stereotypes. According to this view, women tend to have a stronger preference for (or lower aversion against) female characteristics and for female leaders (Stoker, van der Velde &
Lammers, 2012). This effect can be explained by the similarity attraction effect (Byrne, 1971): people like people who are similar to themselves (Stoker, et al., 2012). Hence, women like leaders who have the same gender and share certain characteristics (Stoker, et al., 2012).
Research has shown that women describe successful middle managers as having both stereotypically masculine and feminine characteristics (Brenner et al., 1989). This means that women tend to have an androgynous view of successful leadership (Schein 2001). Men on the other hand stick to masculine characteristics when it comes to describing successful middle managers (Brenner, 1989). Powell, Butterfield & Parent (2002) show that the “think manager-think masculine” stereotype tends to be more masculine when men have to judge this view than when women have to give their vision about this stereotype. Therefore men show only a preference towards masculine leadership characteristics whereas women show a preference for both types of leadership characteristics, namely feminine and masculine leadership styles.
Feminine leadership characteristics are generally found to be more communal whereas
masculine leadership characteristics are found to be more agentic (Powell, et al., 2002). Since
social power is connected to communal qualities which is in its place found to be a feminine
leadership characteristic and personal power is connected with agentic qualities which in its
place can be seen as masculine leadership characteristics the following hypothesis can be
conducted:
11
H2: Women more strongly prefer social power than do men; there are no differences for personal power characteristics.
Overview of the study
According to the before-mentioned hypotheses the following model can be constructed, which can be found in figure 1 in the appendix. In this study there will be looked at how it will be possible for women to improve their minority position. Several factors will be taken in mind which is gender stereotypes, the gender of the followers and the type of power that will be used through the leader.
---
INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE ---
METHOD
Design and Participants
A 3 (Type of power: Social vs. personal vs. no power) by 2 (Politician gender: Male vs.
Female) between participants experimental design has been applied in which a total of 244
respondents participated (approximately 41 participants per condition). Only one respondent
was excluded from the data – an 82 year old woman who completed the questionnaire in 6
minutes where the average time was about 10 minutes, and represented an outlier in 4 of my
dependent measures when conducting residual analysis. Of the remaining 243 respondents,
136 were men and 107 were women, gender was coded “1” for female and coded “2” for
male. The participants had an average age of 37 years (SD = 13.99). In this sample the
educational level of participants was high, 78% of the participants had at least a bachelor’s
12
degree. Of the respondents, 169 were employed, 52 were students and 22 participants were unemployed. The survey took on average 10 minutes to complete.
Procedure
To test the before-mentioned hypotheses, an experimental research study was conducted through an online questionnaire. The participants were found at organizations by asking to take part in the survey and by social media, their participation was voluntary. Upon entering the website, which was conducted by the help of Limesurvey software, respondents received information about the goal and the procedure of the research, and learned that the data would be treated strictly confidential. They were told that the focus of the study was on selection for politicians in elections. A fictive candidate was shown. There was asked to imagine that the fictive candidate was nominated as party leader for a party which was close to the participants’ preference. The questionnaire consisted out of 76 questions. The order of the items was created in such a way to reduce bias in the answers. It started with 4 general demographic questions (e.g. gender and age) followed by items regarding the case (e.g. level of agentic and communality), after these questions deepened demographic questions were asked (e.g. marital status and income) and items regarding participant identity, level of power, management gender ratio, and personality of the participant. They were thanked before and after completion of the questionnaire for their participation.
Power Striving Manipulation
The target politician’s power-seeking intent was manipulated with the definitions of
personal and social power introduced by Lammers, Rink & Stoker (2012). In the no-power-
seeking control condition, participants read: “… Zeelenberg is one of the most ambitious
politicians of the Netherlands (…) He/ She is a politician who doesn’t have a strong need for
13
power. Zeelenberg reacts: “Having power means nothing to me.. I see myself equal to everyone else in this society. I am at service for my voters. When I become the leader of the Netherlands, then I will have chance to fulfill the needs of my voters.” In the personal-power seeking condition, participants read: “… Zeelenberg is one of the most ambitious politicians of the Netherlands (…) He/ She is a politician who wants to obtain power out of a strong need to fulfill his/ her own political agenda, without any control of others.” Zeelenberg reacts:
“Power is important for me, it gives autonomy and therefore it is the key to gain influence for yourself in politics. To have a powerful position, freedom to fulfill my ideas will be possible.
When I become the leader of the Netherlands, I do have chance to implement my plans successful.” In the social-power seeking condition participants read: “ … Zeelenberg is one of the most concerned politicians of the Netherlands (…) He/ She is a politician out of a strong need to take responsibility over others. Zeelenberg reacts: “Power is very important to me, it is the key to realize goals. In a powerful position I can fulfill the needs of the Dutch and the Netherlands as good as possible. When I become the leader of the Netherlands, I do have chance to take care of my voters as good as possible. To check whether this manipulation was successful, respondents were asked their opinion if they found that the candidate wanted to obtain this leadership function out of self-interest or if the candidate wanted to do this for the greater good.
Gender Manipulation
The gender of the politician was manipulated by altering the first name and pronouns
of the political candidate in the newspaper introduction, describing the political candidate
either as “Peter” or “Petra” Zeelenberg. Moreover, pre-tested pictures of a male and female
leader were included (Ryan, Haslam & Kulich, 2011).
14
After having read the excerpts, respondents had to fill in a series of questions with the aim to measure the opinion of the respondent about the leader.
Dependent Measures
Agency and Competence. The expected mediators for men, perceived agency and/or
competence, were assessed by the composite average of six 7-point bipolar adjective ratings (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). Participants rated the extent to which they thought the politician was weak-strong, modest-dominant, accommodating-persistent, non-assertive-assertive, incompetent-competent and ineffective-effective (Agency; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much), Cronbach’s alpha was .74. Moreover, they had to indicate the extent to which the candidate was decisive, determined, persevering, dynamic, well prepared, knowing much, qualified and capable (Competence; 1 = not at all, 7 = very much) with a cronbach’s alpha of .85.
Communality and Warmth. The expected mediators for women, perceived communality and warmth, were assessed by the composite average of three 7-point bipolar adjective ratings for communality (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007): Cold-warm, uncaring-caring and unsupportive-supportive (1 = not at all, 7 = very much), with a Cronbach’s alpha of .88.
Additionally, they had to specify the level to which the candidate was honest, loyal, reliable, sensitive, caring and nice (warmth; 1= not at all, 7 = very much). These ratings were intended to measure the warmth mediator, Cronbach’s alpha was .93.
Moral outrage. Participants’ affective reactions toward the target politician were
examined by with the following six items irritation, annoyance, aversion, disgust, contempt
and outrage (Okimoto and Brescoll, 2010) Cronbach’s alpha was .94, furthermore it was rated
on a 1 = not at all, 7 = very much scale.
15
Voting preference. The primary dependent measure of voting preference was assessed
by asking participants three questions, namely: “If this politician would represent a party which would agree to your political preference, would you vote for this candidate?”, “If this politician would represent a party which would agree to your political preference, would you want that this candidate would become prime minister?” and “If this candidate would live in your street, would you be wanted to be friends with this person? Preferences were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much) reliability was measured by Cronbach’s alpha, which was .79.
Effective leadership. Participants’ anticipated effective leadership of the candidate
was measured with seven items (Rink, Ryan & Stoker, in press): “Will be received positively”, “Can easily connect to people”, “Is able to make people listen”, “Will be successful”, “Is qualified for this function”, “Will be a good leader” and “Will be liked”. All seven items were averaged to reflect a single factor of effective leadership. (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). Reliability was Cronbach’s alpha .90.
Control Variables
In my sample, 31% of the respondents indicated that the work related questions were
not applicable to their situation as they were either a student or unemployed. Yet of the
respondents who were currently employed, 48 respondents fulfilled a management position,
for the most part at the lower management level. The percentage of women in their
organizations mostly ranged between 21% and 40%, with 0 – 20% of women in top
management positions. Other controls that were measured were respondents’ level of gender
identification, display gender bias, gender emancipation (Rink, Ryan & Stoker, 2011). They
were all measured on 7 point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).
16
Furthermore, I asked for their political preference (1 = very left, 7 = very right) and general interests in politics, there was asked how often the participant talked about politics (1
= every day, 5 = a few times a year). Finally, I assessed respondents’ personality with the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) – a shortened version of the big FIVE basic dimensions (Gosling, Rentrfrow & Swann, 2003). This test was conducted since it could potentially influence how respondents perceive others, since according to Triandis (2001) personality generally determines the individual’s unique adjustment to the world. Therefore it could have an influence on how respondents perceive the political leaders in this study. The TIPI captures a number of basic dimensions within a personality, it does this by measuring the amount of psychoticism, extraversion, neuroticism and the degree of social desirability.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations and Pearson zero-order correlation for all
dependent variables. In line with the expectations, agentic was negatively related to
communality (r = -.21, p < .01) warmth (r = -.19, p < .01) and the control variable social
power (r = -.20, p < .01). The interconnection between communality and warmth was found to
be positive and significant (r = .76, p < .01), just like communality and the control variable
social power (r = .68, p = < .01). Moreover the control variable personal power is positively
correlated to agentic (r = .46, p < .01) and competence (r = .35, p < .01) and as expected
negatively correlated to communality (r = -.57, p < .01) and warmth (r = -.58, p < .01). None
of the variables were positively correlated to moral outrage, except for personal power (r =
.43, p < .01). To make one story short, all expected correlations existed except the negative
correlation between competence and communality.
17
---
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE ---
Manipulation checks
The results on the checks demonstrated that my manipulations were successful.
Participants correctly indicated gender of the candidate. Moreover, participants correctly indicated that the candidate was striving for autonomy in the personal power condition: M = 5.50, SD = .61 for personal power, M = 5.09, SD = .80 for social power and M = 3.90, SD = .86 for the no power condition, furthermore F (2, 243) = 96.5, p = .00, çp2 = .45. In the social power condition the participants also correctly indicated social influence: M = 2.97, SD = .91 for personal power, M = 3.66, SD = 1.13 for social power, and M = 4.96, SD = 1.02 for the no power condition, furthermore F (2, 243) = 74.83, p = .00, çp2 = .38. As can be seen the personal power is higher in the autonomy case and social power is higher in the social influence case.
Dependent Measures
For all dependent measures, I conducted separate ANOVAS with gender and power as independent factors and the control variables as covariates.
In these analyses, the control variables did not yield significant independent main effects on dependent measures, nor did it affect the combined influence of gender candidate and striving for power on any of these measures.
Therefore, the control variables were removed from all subsequent analyses. Except for the
control variable “gender of the respondent”, this variable showed marginally significant
results on the interaction effect between the two factors for the dependent variables moral
outrage F (2, 243 ) = 2.54, p = .08, çp2 = .02 and voting preference F (2, 243) = 2.73, p = .07,
18
çp2 = .02. It showed that female respondents scored high on moral outrage when personal power was used (M = 4.44, SD = 1.31) and low when no power was used (M = 2.37, SD = 1.27), social power was in the middle (M = 3.66, SD = 1.55). For men, the order was the same, however less variation was there to find between the different types of power (personal power scored M = 3.86, SD = 1.18, social power M = 3.45, SD = 1.41 and no power M = 2.74, SD = 1.37). Looking at voting preference, there can be seen that there was more variation for women compared with men, however the order was reversed. Women respondents had low voting preference for personal power (M = 2.44, SD = 1.08) and high voting preference when no power was used (M = 4.06, SD = 1.18) again, social power was in the middle (M = 3.47, SD = 1.27). As mentioned there was less difference between the different types of power used for men they scored lowest on personal power (M = 2.99, SD = 1.44) highest on no power (M = 3.66, SD = 1.34) and social power was in between (M = 3.19, SD = 1.69). These results will be shown in figure 2 and 3.
---
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE ---
---
INSERT FIGURE 3 ABOUT HERE ---
Agency and Competence. The results on the agentic measure revealed a separate main
effects for power striving, F (2, 243) = 49.80, p = .00, çp2 = .30. No separate main effect was
found for gender. Interesting to see is that leaders were found to be more agentic when
personal power was used (M = 5.31, SD = .68) than when social power (M = 5.09, SD = .84)
or no power (M = 4.11, SD = .98) was used. The results on the competence measure also
revealed a main effect for power striving, F (2, 243) = 15.15, p = .00, çp2 = .11. No main
19
effect was found for gender. The leaders who used personal power (M = 5.14, SD = .67) were rated higher for competence than social power (M = 5.00, SD = .95) or no power (M = 4.41, SD = 1.04).
Communality and warmth. The results on the communal measure revealed two
separate main effects for gender, F (1, 243) = 4.71, p = .03, çp2 = .02, and for power striving, F (2, 243) = 93.08, p = .00, çp2 =.44, qualified by an interaction effect, F (2, 243) = 2.65, p = .07, çp2 = .02. As predicted, people believed that leaders who used social power (men M = 3.21, SD = 1.12, for women M = 3.92, SD = 1.12) were considered more communal than those who used personal power (men M = 2.84, SD = .94, SD = 2.98, SD = .95), yet for women the overall scores were even higher than for men. Interesting to see is that the communal trait was rated highest for the no power condition (for men M = 5.04, SD = .91, for women M = 5.05, SD = 1.13). The marginal significant results can be found in figure 4. The results on the warmth measure also revealed two separate main effects for gender, F (1, 243)
= 7.13, p = .01, çp2 = .03, and for the type of power used, F (2, 243) = 43.27, p = .00, çp2 = .27. No interaction effect was found. Again, people believed that leaders who used social power (for men M = 3.20, SD = .93, for women M = 3.86, SD = 1.17) were considered warmer than those who used personal power (for men M = 3.15, SD = .90, for women M = 3.86, SD = 1.17.), yet for women the overall scores were even higher than for men.
Furthermore the no power condition was again being rated highest (for men M = 4.73, SD = 1.23, for women M = 4.85, SD = 1.21).
---
INSERT FIGURE 4 ABOUT HERE ---
Moral outrage. The results on the moral outrage measure showed two separate main
effects for gender, F (1, 243) = 8.57, p =.00, çp2 =.04, and for the type of power used, F (2,
20
243) = 26.64, p = .00, çp2 = .18. No interaction effect was found. The personal power female leaders (M = 3.98, SD = 1.33) scored higher on moral outrage than the social power female leaders (M = 3.11, SD = 1.40), however the male leaders – whether striving for personal (M = 4.16, SD = 1.18) or social power (M = 4.00, SD = 1.44) – scored highest on this measure. For the control variable no power, scores where low for both men and for women (respectively M
= 2.78, SD = 1.39, and M = 2.37, SD = 1.21).
Voting preference. The results on voting preference variable showed two separate
main effects for gender, F (1, 243) = 4.12, p = .04, çp2 = .04, and for the type of power used, F (2, 243) = 12.35, p = .00, çp2 = .18, qualified by a significant interaction between the two separate factors, F (2, 243) = 4.95, p = .01, çp2 = .04. As predicted voting preference was higher for women who used social power (M = 3.88, SD = 1.33) than for women who used personal power (M = 2.87, SD = 1.37), while there was only a marginal difference between these power striving tactics for the male leader (for personal power M = 2.69, SD = 1.31 and for social power M = 2.80, SD = 1.44). Interestingly to see is that voting preference is highest for women when they use social power however, for men voting preference is rated highest when no power has been used (M = 3.94, SD = 1.45), significant results will be shown in figure 5.
---
INSERT FIGURE 5 ABOUT HERE ---
Effective leadership The outcomes on effective leadership measure showed two
separate main effects for gender, F (1. 243) = .57, p = .45, çp2 = .00, and for the type of
power used, F (2, 243) = 8.97, p = .00, çp2 = .07, qualified by a significant interaction
between the two separate factors, F (2, 243) = 5.24, p = .01, çp2 = .04. This significant effect
showed that effective leadership was higher for women with social power (M = 4.14, SD =
21
1.15) than when they used personal (M = 3.26, SD = 1.04) or no power (M = 3.95, SD = 1.10) and for men the effect was highest when they used no power (M = 4.21, SD = 1.17), lowest effective leadership did they yield when they used social power (M = 3.38, SD = 1.13).
Highest effective leadership was there for women who used social power, results will be shown in figure 6. Furthermore significant results will be shown in table 2.
---
INSERT FIGURE 6 ABOUT HERE ---
---
INSERT TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE ---
Supplementary Analyses; Mediation effects. Shrout and Bolger (2002) advocate that
an indirect effect of manipulations, even in absence of a significant direct effect, an important mediating relationship is suggested. To test for mediation, the indirect effect of the manipulation on voting preference through communality and effective leadership perceptions were considered since these dependent variables had a significant interaction effect or a marginally significant interaction effect and therefore a mediation effect was expected.
Outcomes can be found in table 3. When including communality as a predictor in the
regression, the interaction effect of gender and power striving on voting preference was
increased to non-significance, β = .01, t = -.11 p = .91. Communality had a positive effect on
voting preferences β= .51, t = 7.09, p = .00. Then effective leadership was included in the
regression, testing for the second level of mediation. The direct effects of communality β =
.20, t = 3.12 p = .00 on voting preferences were reduced, while effective leadership
perceptions did have a positive effect on voting preferences, β = .59, t = 11.67 p = .00. A full
mediated model can be found in the appendix, figure 7.
22
---
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE ---
---
INSERT FIGURE 7 ABOUT HERE ---
DISCUSSION
Findings
Consistent with previous studies of Lammers, et al., (2012), the results suggest that female politicians are indeed held to different interpersonal standards from male politicians, as only the female candidate was more positively evaluated for using social power. However, this study is in contrast with the study of Okimoto and Brescoll (2010), suggesting that female candidates are penalized for exhibiting personal power-seeking desires. Specifically, the provision of additional information suggesting power-seeking intentions resulted in lower voting preferences for female candidates. Although it is true that voting preference is indeed lower for personal power seeking intentions than for social power seeking intentions, this rate is not significant lower compared to men. Thus, this study shows preliminary evidence that women may even have more advantages than do men to climb the power ladder in a company, as long as they behave in lines with gender stereotype, therefore hypothesis 1 can be confirmed.
When looking at the control variables women tend to have an obvious view about
which type of power they prefer. They have a strong negative view for personal power, and a
strong positive view when no power is used. For social power the results stay somewhat in the
23
middle. These results are in contrast with hypothesis 2 since here it was suggested that women more strongly prefer social power than do men, and no differences for personal power characteristics should exist. Interesting to see is that voting preference for social power is for female respondents higher compared to male respondents, this is in line with hypothesis 2, since there was stated that women more strongly prefer social power than do men. Results also show that female respondents’ rate moral outrage higher for social power than do male respondents, therefore it cannot be fully stated if female respondents more strongly prefer social power than do men. When looking at personal power, it needs to be disconfirmed that no difference exist here for male and female respondents, there was stated that no difference should exist for women and men in their preference towards personal power characteristics.
The results clearly show that there is a negative view towards personal power, however female respondents tend to rate personal power seeking intentions more negative than do male respondents. The results unmistakably demonstrate that women have a strong negative view for this type of power used. To name, they score high on moral outrage for personal power and low on voting preference which clearly shows that no preference is given for this type of power used. For male respondents the results suggest the same, however less strong, and therefore it should be disconfirmed that there exist the same view towards personal power.
What is interesting to see and what has not been researched in literature so far is that both, male and female respondents tend to have a strong preference for leaders which show that they do not strive for power. Again, the preference is stronger for women than for men, however both sexes show that no power seeking intentions are preferred for leaders. In this case we can say that this research has shown that male respondents do not have a preference for which type of power is used. On the other hand female respondents tend to find this important; they have a strong preference for leaders who have no-power seeking intentions.
Furthermore they dislike leaders who use personal-power intentions.
24
Theoretical implications
Consistent with past research (Okimoto & Brescoll, 2010), communality has a positive effect on voting preferences, and even more for women than for men. What is new in this research is that there has been made meditational evidence for the fact that communality has a positive effect on anticipated effective leadership, which shows in its turn a positive effect on voting preference. Furthermore this research shows that the type of power a candidate uses is of more influence on voting preference than gender itself.
For male leaders it does not make any difference if personal or social power has been used, however women do have an extra benefit when they use social power. Thus, it seems nowadays more accepted that women use personal power, although social power is preferred.
This is in line with what has been written about gender stereotypes, according to Eagly and Sczesny, (2009) gender stereotypes indeed seem to have changed over the last years, due to changes in the social roles of men and women in society. This change primarily affected the gender role of women, who have acquired more masculine characteristics, while keeping the feminine characteristics (Diekman and Goodfriend, 2006).
When looking at the gender of the respondents and their voting preferences in
particular, new theory can be contributed. As was researched by Powel et al. (2002) men
should give a preference towards masculine leadership characteristics, however this research
has shown that men have no strong preference for one leadership style. Furthermore there was
suggested that women are more androgynous in their opinion towards leadership styles
(Schein, 2001). This research shows that women do have a stronger discrepancy towards
leadership styles. It is shown that women are not androgynous in their opinion; merely they
tend to give preference to no-power seeking intentions.
25
Future research directions and limitations
Although it has been found now that people have a preference for women who use social power seeking intentions, it has not been found why people do have this preference. A suggestion for further future research can therefore be why people prefer women with social power seeking intentions. This can be about the people itself, their personality, or about external influences which makes them prefer women with social power. Furthermore it will be interesting to study the development of power seeking intentions during people’s careers.
Self-interested attributes such as power seeking may be generally unattractive qualities for any politician to possess, selection of the most effective leaders demands equivalent appraisal criteria irrespective of the potential aspirants’ salient social categories (Okimoto &
Brescoll, 2010). Perhaps it is necessary for a leader to possess power seeking intentions, it will be therefore interesting to see how and when a person who makes career changes in his or her power seeking intentions. A longitudinal observational cohort study can be done to test whether people who tend to receive more power in their career, show a change in their power seeking intentions. So to say a group of graduates needs to be followed and when the study starts their power seeking intentions need to be measured, each follow-up year their career progress needs to be measured, and when they have reached a more powerful position, their power seeking intentions need to be measured again. If a graduate has not obtained a powerful position in his or her career than power-seeking intentions need to be measured when the study ends. By conducting this research there can be seen if people tend to change in their power-seeking intentions when they receive a more powerful position.
Another limitation in this study is that no research has been done towards the fact if female advantages will always be the case or if there are situations that this does not count.
For example there can be thought of differences in cultures. A cross-cultural study can be
26
conducted between different cultures to see if there are differences in their voting preference.
A distinction can be made between collectivistic and individualistic cultures. According to Triandis (2001) elements of culture are shared standard operating procedures, understated assumptions, tools, norms, values, habits about sampling the environment and the like.
Perception and cognition depend on the information that is sampled from the environment, and cultures develop conventions about what to pay attention to and how much to weigh the elements that are sampled. Triandis (1989) argued that people in individualistic cultures, such as those of North and Western Europe and North America, sample, with probability of the personal self. People from collectivistic cultures, such as those of Asia, Africa and South America, tend to sample elements of the collectivistic self. There can be thought of that in collectivistic cultures, social power will be evaluated more positively and in individualistic cultures, personal power will be evaluated more positively. Since personal power is related to the personal self and social power to the collectivistic self. By conducting a cross-cultural study there can be tested if it makes a difference where the type of power will be used, by using collectivistic and individualistic cultures as moderators for the effect. Furthermore there can be looked at if gender makes a difference in these different cultures.
Moreover, this study is limited due to the fact that it was an experimental design study.
It could have been of influence that this study was conducted during crisis time however,
since this study was no longitudinal study, evidence cannot be given for this. Due to the glass
cliff effect, the economic crisis could have been of influence. Since with the glass cliff effect
it is suggested that women are overrepresented in positions where there is a crisis situation at
hand (Ryan & Haslam, 2005). To increase the strength of this study, research needs to be
done by conducting a longitudinal study. In this way characteristics can be measured on
individual level, furthermore it can show the order in how changes in perception occur. By
conducting a longitudinal study, an expectation will be that the positive result for women will
27
be reduced when the world is coming out of its economic crisis, therefore the economic crisis needs to be put as a factor for the effect.
Summary and practical implications
What was thought in the past has been changed nowadays. Generally was thought that women would have a disadvantage to obtain power when they used personal power, however this research has shown that this disadvantage has disappeared. Nowadays it is generally accepted for women to use personal power, however it is even better for them to use social power. Another interesting point what is discovered is that people generally tend to have a preference for leaders who do not strive for power. What does this mean in real life? It means that it is better for women to use their responsibility over other to obtain power (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee, 2003). However, they can still use personal power if they want to climb the power ladder.
In real life it is important to look at who is in charge for others to obtain leadership, so to say it is important to look at who determines climbing the power ladder for another. As mentioned before Helfat , Harris and Wolfson (2006) state that only 6 percent of CEOs in the fortune 1000 will be women by 2016, and according to Merens,et at., (2011) in the Netherlands only 28% of higher educated management functions were fulfilled by women in 2009. Therefore at the moment it is hard to say which type of power is best to use for women since men do not have a strong preference for one type of power. Consequently, when male leaders need to decide who obtains power they will not be sensitive for one type of power, and therefore knowing what type of power is best to use for women may not be that relevant.
On the other hand, there is a rise in the number of women who fulfill top management functions and therefore this research will be a valuable tool in future. As concluded before:
women show a strong preference for no power seeking intentions. This is a crucial valuable
28
given, which can help young women to climb the power ladder when more women fulfill top positions.
What can be concluded is that women favor people when they posses no power seeking intentions. Furthermore in general a favor is there for female leaders when they use social power to climb the power ladder. To come back to the whole beginning, as Margaret Thatcher has stated “being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t”, women indeed should not clearly show that they want to climb the power ladder.
Although someone may have the goal to become powerful it should not be exposed in that way. It helps to take care of others and to show social power or no power seeking intentions, especially when more women become leaders.
REFERENCE LIST
Barreto, M., Ryan, M., & Schmitt, M. (2009) The glass ceiling in the 21
stcentury:
Understanding barriers to gender inequality, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. P. 182-303
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989) The relationship between sex-role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32, P. 662–669
Desvaux, G., Devillard, S., & Sancier-Sultan, S. (2010) Women at the top of corporations:
making it happen, Women Matter http://www.mckinsey.com/locations/paris/home/women matter.asp
Diekman, A. B., & Goodfriend, W. (2006) Rolling with the changes: A role congruity
perspective on gender norms, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, P. 369–383
29
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2003) The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence, Leadership Quarterly, 14, P. 807–834
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders, Psychological Review, 109, P. 573–598
Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009) Stereotypes about woman, men, and leaders: have times changed? In M. Barreto, M. Ryan, & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Barriers to diversity: The glass ceiling in the 21
stCentury. American Psychological Association
Emerson, R.M. (1962) Power dependence relations, American Journal of Sociology, 27, P.
31–41
Fletcher, J. K. (1994) Castrating the female advantage, Journal of Management Inquiry, 3: P.
74–82
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power, In D. Cartwright , ed.
Studies in social power, P. 150 – 167 . Ann Arbor, MI: university of Michigan
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003) From power to action, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, P. 453–466
Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. (2003) A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains, Journal of Research in Personality, 37, P. 504–528
Healy, B. (1991) The yentl syndrome, New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 325 P. 274-275 Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007) Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, P. 81-92
Helfat, C. E., Harris, D. & Wolfson, P. J. (2006) The pipeline to the top: women and men in the top executive ranks of US corporations, Academy of Management Perspectives, 20, P. 42–
64
Kipnis, D. (1972) Does power corrupt? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, P.
33–41
Lammers, J., Rink, F., & Stoker, J. I. (2012) Gender Bias in Reactions towards Striving for
Power, Working Paper, University of Groningen
30
Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009) Differentiating social and personal power:
Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies, Psychological Science, P. 1543-1549
Lookeren Campagne, F. (2011) Aantal vrouwen in topfuncties stijgt gestaag, Intermediair http://www.intermediair.nl/artikel/vrouwen-aan-de-top Accessed: 25-01-2012
Merens, A., van den Brakel, M., Hartgers, M., & Hermans, B. (2011) Emancipatiemonitor 2010, The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau & Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek Moskowitz, D. S., Suh, E. J., & Desaulniers, J. (1994) Situational influences on gender differences in agency and communion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, P.
753–761
Okimoto, T. & Brescoll, V. (2010) The Price of Power: Power Seeking and Backlash Against Female Politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36 (7), P. 923-936
Parsons, T. E. F. (1967) Sociological theory and modern society, New York: Free Press Powell, G. N., Butterfield, D. A., & Parent, J. D. (2002) Gender and managerial stereotypes:
Have the times changed? Journal of Management, 28, P. 177–193
Rink, F., Ryan. M., K. & Stoker, J., I. (2011) Influence in Times of Crisis: Exploring how Social and Financial Resources Affect Men’s and Women’s Evaluations of Glass Cliff Positions, Running Head: Gender evaluations of glass cliff positions, Draft version
Rosener, J. (1990) Ways women lead, Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec: 1 P. 119-125 Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001) Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57, P. 743–62
Russell, B. (1960) Power, a new social analysis, London : Allen and Unwin
Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2005) The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over-
represented in precarious leadership positions, British Journal of Management, 16, P. 81-90
Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Kulich, C. (2010) Politics and the glass cliff: Evidence that
women are preferentially selected to contest hard-to-win seats, Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 34, P. 56-64
31
Schein, V. E. (2001) A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management, Journal of Social Issues, 57, P. 675–688
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations, Psychological Methods, 7, P. 422-445
Stoker, J.I., Velde, M. van der, & Lammers, J. (2012) Factors relating to managerial stereotypes: The role of gender of the employee and the manager and management ratio, Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), P. 31-42
Triandis, H. C. (1989) The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts, Psychological Review, 96, P. 506–520
Triandis, H. C. (2001) Individualism-collectivism and personality, Journal of Personality, 69, P. 907–924
Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K. J. (2002) Preferences for idealized styles of supervision.
The Leadership Quarterly, 13, P. 327–342.
Weber, M. (1978) Economy and society, Berkeley: University of California Press
Wiley, M. G., & Eskilson, A. (1985) Speech style, gender stereotypes, and corporate success:
What if women talk more like men? Sex Roles, 12, P. 993–1007
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002) A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and
men: Implications for the origins of sex differences, Psychological Bulletin, 128, P. 699-727
32
APPENDIX I Tables
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and Pearson Zero-order correlations among the dependent measures.
Mean ± SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Agentic 4.86 ±0.98 -
2. Communality 3.84 ±1.37 -.21** -
3. Competence 4.85 ±0.95 .69** -.07 -
4. Warmth 3.89 ±1.27 -.19** .76** .05 -
5. Moral outrage 3.41 ±1.48 .08 -.63** -.05 -.62** -
6. Capability 3.72 ±1.57 .27** .39** .36** .40** -.45** -
7. Voting preference 3.32 ±1.43 .06 .51** .19** .51** -.47** .60** -
8. Effective leadership 3.73 ±1.17 .16* .48** .30** .45** -.44** .64** .70** -
9. Personal power 4.77 ±1.83 .46** -.57** .35** -.58** .43** -.23** -.32** -.21** - 10. Social power 3.87 ±1.81 -.20** .68** -.02 .68** -.57** .38** .51** .51** -.60**
Note N = 243
** p < .01, * p < .05
33
Table 2. Means and SDs of the ratings for significant dependent measurement scales divided by gender experiment
Personal power Social power No power Communal Female leader 2.98±0.95* 3.92±1.12* 5.05±1.13*
Male leader 2.84±0.94†† 3.21±1.08†† 5.04±0.91††
Voting Female leader 2.87±1.37* 3.88±1.33* 3.72±1.08*
preference Male leader 2.69±1.31† 2.80±1.44† 3.94±1.45†
Effective Female leader 3.26±1.04* 4.14±1.15* 3.95±1.10*
leadership Male leader 3.43±1.07 3.38±1.13 4.21±1.17
Note, N = 243, Standard deviations appear after ±, all ratings were done on 7-point scales. Higher numbers indicate more communal, more voting preference and more effective leadership. Significance level is indicated by p-value.
* power strategy has significance level p < 0.001
** power strategy has significance level p < 0.05
† gender strategy has significance level p < 0.001
†† gender strategy has significance level p < 0.05
Table 3. Hierarchical regression results for dependent measures
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Outcome Predictor β t value β t value β t value
Communality Candidate gender -.10 -2.10**
Power strategy .64 13.03*
Gender x power .64 13.01*
Effective leadership Candidate gender -.05 -.72 .01 .18
Power strategy .26 4.18* -.08 -1.10
Gender x power .26 4.21* -.08 -1.08
Communality - - .53 7.21**
Voting preference Candidate gender -.12 -1.98 -.07 -1.19 -.07 -1.62
Power strategy .30 4.92* -.04 -.50 .01 .21
Gender x power .32 5.28* -.01 -.11 .04 .67
Communality .51 9.17* .51 7.09* .20 3.12**
Effective leadership - - - - .59 11.67**
34
** p < .01, * p < .05
APPENDIX II Figures
35
Figure 1. Constructed model for study overview
Figure 2. Marginal significant results for control variable gender respondent on moral outrage for type of power used.
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Personal power Social power No power
Mean
Moral Outrage
Female respondent Male respondent
36
Figure 3. Marginal significant results for control variable gender respondent on voting preference for type of power used.
Figure 4. Marginal significant results for interaction effect type of power x gender leader on control variable communal.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Personal power Social power No power
Mean
Voting Preference
Female respondent Male respondent
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Personal power Social power No power
Mean
Communal
Female Male
37
Figure 5. Significant results on interaction effect type of power x gender leader on
control variable voting preference.
Figure 6. Significant results on interaction effect type of power x gender leader on control variable effective leadership.
0 1 2 3 4 5
Personal power Social power No power
Mean
Voting Preference
Female Male
0 1 2 3 4 5
Personal power Social power No power
Mean
Effective Leadership
Female Male
38
Figure 7. Full mediated model
Values are standardized regression coefficients from the regressions (see Table 3). The model is fully identified, so no fit statistics are presented. Only significant pathways are presented; nonsignificant pathways were removed for ease of interpretation.
