Congruity between the female gender role and the leader role: a literature review

Congruity between the Female Gender Role and the Leader Role:

A Literature Review

Abstract

Purpose – Informed by the role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders, this

paper reviews the literature on gender and leadership to consolidate existing theory

development, stimulate new thinking and provide a framework for future empirical studies. It

offers a theoretical framework to understand what may prevent or facilitate the emergence of

female leaders.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews and synthesises recent research on the

linkages between gender and leadership.

Findings – The review extends Eagly and Karau’s (2002) role congruity theory by (1)

identifying additional constructs that may alleviate negative prejudicial evaluations, and (2)

offering new insights about the potential alignment between feminine traits and leadership

success.

Practical implications – The theoretical framework that emerged in this paper may be used

as a heuristic model to contextually examine the lack of female leaders.

Originality/value – The paper proposes a theoretical framework to understand issues related

to the emergence of female leaders. It offers news insights about possible alignment in

female-leader role stereotypes that may address prejudicial evaluations against female

leaders.

Keywords – Gender equality, Incongruity, Leadership, Prejudice, Stereotypes

1

Introduction

There is an increasing number of skilled and educated women across the globe, many of

whom remain unemployed or employed in lower levels compared to their male compatriots

(Metcalfe, 2008; UNDP, 2017). The literature highlights an underrepresentation of

women in upper management levels and, the presence of unfavorable stereotypes about

women (e.g. Eagly and Karau, 2002; Jeong and Harrison, 2017). For women, this is an

issue of equal opportunities and justice in their economic participation, and for

scholars, it affords an opportunity to pay attention to the topic of gender in leadership

(Du, 2016).

Despite the diversity in the feminist theories, they share the same notion, “notably the

recognition of male dominance in social arrangements”, and a desire for changing this

situation (Calás and Smircich, 1996, p. 213). In an early attempt to understanding how

females progress to leadership positions, Ragins and Sundstrom (1989) differentiate between

factors at four levels of analysis, i.e., social, organisational, interpersonal and individual.

They note that females, at the individual level, should be resourceful with skills and abilities

to be leaders. Also they should have good relationships with subordinates and peers

(interpersonal level). Moreover, although females may have skills and good relationships

with subordinates, they may encounter challenges in selection and promotion (organisational

level). Finally, the social level concentrates on factors such as how people stereotype female

roles (Peus et al., 2015). A key concern in the literature is the inconsistency in female-leader

role stereotypes (Ferguson, 2018). This study focuses on social level issues and gender

stereotypes faced by female leaders.

Traditionally, leadership tasks have been equated with masculinity and linked with

autonomy and result-orientation, “something which is not particularly much in line with what

2

is broadly assumed to be typical for females” (Billing and Alvesson, 2000, p. 144). While

studies have shown varied findings about gender and leadership (e.g., Koenig et al., 2011;

Muller-Kahle and Schiehll, 2013), the male/masculine is still regarded as the universal or

neutral criterion against which the woman is judged (Leitch and Stead, 2016).

Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females. Traditionally, leadership has been equated with masculinity. Managerial jobs, at least inbusiness and on senior levels, have been defined as a matter of instrumentality, autonomy,result-orientation, etc. something which is not particularly much in line with what is broadlyassumed to be typical for females.

Research suggests that female leaders live within paradoxes between the typical

image of masculine leadership and the expected feminine style (Mavin and Grandy, 2016).

These masculine stereotypical practices and their interaction with culturally specific practices

may result in gender differences in the emergence of leadership (Van and Spisak, 2008).

3

In other streams of research, scholars have pointed towards merits of feminine

attributes or styles of leadership (e.g., Marco, 2012; Ryan et al., 2011; Schaumberg and

Flynn, 2016). However, despite such efforts towards appreciation of femininity, men

continue to dominate leadership positions also in feminised jobs (Harvey and Myles, 2014).

This calls for further research to understand why, if there is an appreciation of feminine

styles of leadership, there is still a relative lack of women in leadership positions.

Specifically, research on gender and leadership does not offer a clear picture

about the extent to which there is a congruity or incongruity between the female role and the

leader role. Therefore, and with the aim of going beyond issues of sex ratios or women’s

employment, there is a need to understand the current situation of gender and leadership to

assess the presence and extent of a mismatch between the female gender role and the leader

role stereotypes. To our knowledge, no consolidated literature review on this topic has been

conducted in recent years. This paper seeks to bridge this gap.

In this study, we use role congruity theory (RCT) as a guiding framework to

investigate existing literature on gender and leadership and to review the diverse findings on

the congruity (or incongruity) between gender and leader role stereotypes. The following

questions guided our review of the literature: what is the current situation regarding

stereotyping gender and leadership? Do people stereotype feminine qualities to be suitable for

(or in conflict with) leadership positions? This will help in understanding the current situation

regarding gender and leadership stereotypes through the lens of RCT. The core principle of

RCT is that leaders’ and women’s roles diverge because of the incongruity in female-leader

role stereotypes.

This paper’s significance lies in capturing the on-going debate on the inconsistency

between the female gender role and the leader role, thus explaining the lack of women in

leadership positions. We review the literature for a transparent and objective coverage of this

4

area (Weed, 2005) by exploring studies on female leadership and gender practices in

organisations.

The paper is organised as follows. First, a discussion of the role congruity theory is

presented. Second, the methodology of review, including the search criteria and data analysis,

is offered. Third, an extensive review of the literature is presented. Then, the paper presents

the findings. Finally, it offers discussion and conclusion and outlines avenues for future

research.

Theoretical underpinning Role congruity theory (RCT) of prejudice toward female leaders

When females enter highly male-dominated jobs, they do not “fit” the stereotypical

expectations of abilities expected in that job, and therefore encounter greater bias and

discrimination (Joshi et al., 2015). Role congruity theory (Eagly and Karau, 2002) explains

how cognitive contradictions between gender stereotype and leader stereotype produce

prejudice that underlies preference for male leaders. The theory was developed by Eagly and

Karau (2002) “based on an analysis of the descriptive and injunctive aspects of gender roles”

to explore how the inconsistency between woman and leader roles leads to prejudicial

evaluations against women leaders while underlining preference for men (p. 588). According

to RCT, this inconsistency may lead to prejudice: (1) against potential female leaders and (2)

against actual female leaders.

Eagly and Carli (2003) argue that prejudice against female leaders arises from

people’s beliefs and perceptions about their gender rather than their skills and abilities.

Hence, because “the traits commonly associated with traditional, heroic leadership are closely

aligned with stereotypical images of masculinity” (Fletcher, 2002, p.1), females face

prejudice notwithstanding their skilful performance as leaders.

5

A large body of literature supports the basic notion of RCT. Mulvaney et al. (2007)

argue that the contradictions between typical female role (i.e. staying at home and taking care

of others) and typical employee role (i.e. spending time outside the home) may adversely

affect women’s career advancement. Some studies point towards the advantage that male

leaders have due to their masculine abilities (e.g., Muller-Kahle and Schiehll, 2013). In their

study examining bias in determining candidacy for leadership positions, Garcia-Retamero

and López-Zafra (2006) found that when the candidate is female, and the industry is not role-

congruent with her gender-role, decision makers manifest prejudice in selection.

In contrast, there may be an orientation towards stereotyping feminine qualities, such

as caring, sensitive and cooperative as important features for leadership. For example, women

leaders are perceived as more cooperative and caring (e.g., Duffy et al., 2015; Marco, 2012).

Eagly and Carli (2003) note that in modern organisations, there may be more consideration of

feminine qualities, such as caring and support as important features for leadership. Thus, to

understand the extent to which the literature portrays the feminine qualities to be as suitable

for or in conflict with leadership positions, the paper reviews the literature to evaluate the

presence of a (mis)match between the female gender role and the leader role stereotypes.

Methodology of the review

The notions of gender and leadership can be theorised in different ways and subscribe to

various theories. The present study adopts the role congruity theory (RCT) to handle this

epistemological assortment. By following the RCT framework, a selective literature review

of recent publications (2010-2018) was carried out (with support of traditional review of

earlier studies) to gain insights into gender and leadership in organisations. The methodology

was adopted to provide a transparent, replicable and unbiased coverage (Weed, 2005) of the

literature on gender and leadership stereotypes. The review takes into account various

6

contributions that, despite drawing on different methodologies and epistemologies in various

ways, highlight the central problem of stereotypes around femininity vs leadership.

In this section, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search procedure, data analysis and

sample are discussed. We conducted an electronic journal database search of seven academic

journals ranked as 3-star and 4-star journals in the Chartered Association of Business Schools

(ABS) 2015 academic journal guide (CABS, 2015). These journals are Academy of

Management Journal, Gender, Work & Organization, Human Resource Management

Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Leadership

Quarterly, and Psychology of Women Quarterly. A detailed rationale for choosing these

seven journals is offered in the following section.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The following criteria were used in this analysis: (a) articles published in ABS 3-star and 4-

star journals, (b) published between 2010 and 2018, and (c) topical relevance. Following

these criteria, this paper used relevant key words (as explained in the next section) in each

database to include all relevant articles as a first step. Then, a review of the abstracts of the

initial pool of articles was done to further exclude any irrelevant article.

Once all relevant articles were identified, we screened their full text to evaluate their

relatedness based on the inclusion criteria. At this stage, we conducted a detailed review of

the methodology, results, discussion and recommendations to refine our selection. As a result,

a total of 45 articles were chosen. A similar methodology was conducted by Hackett and Dilts

(2004) and Parris and Peachey (2013) who selected 38 and 39 studies respectively in their

review.

7

Search methods

All published articles were searched through electronic databases (e.g., Summon and Google

Scholar) by using a university library system. The search procedure conducted in the journal

websites was the use of key words and the specific time period of the publication in order to

meet the inclusion criteria. The rationale for choosing recent studies is the significant

awareness in recent years about female participation in leadership (Mavin and Grandy, 2016).

The key words used in the selected journals are as follows. In the Leadership

Quarterly and Journal of Applied Psychology, key words were: female, masculine, gender

gap, gender role and women. In the Psychology of Women Quarterly journal, different key

words were used because this journal is not specialised in leadership: i.e., female leaders,

women leadership, gender gap, masculinity and leader. Also in the Academy of Management

Journal and Journal of Organizational Behavior, the following key words were used: female

leadership, femininity, gender, masculinity, and women. Finally, in the Gender, Work &

Organization journal and the Human Resource Management Journal, screening was done by

reading titles and abstracts of the articles published without using specific keywords due to

the high relatedness of these journals with the topic (gender). Table I 1 offers an overview of

the articles selected in this analysis.

Insert Table I 1 about here

Data analysis

A consistent strategy was used to analyse the selected articles. Key elements abstracted from

each publication are as follow: (a) The aim of the article, (b) the methodology used, (c) the

findings of the article, (d) the adopted theories that underpin the selected articles, and (e) the

future recommendations to determine gaps in this field. However, because issues such as

gender and leadership can be understood and theorised in radically different ways depending

8

on the theoretical lens, and also because this field subscribes to many different and

sometimes conflicting epistemologies, this study uses a selective review of the literature and

adopts the role congruity theory to deal with such variety of the epistemological assumptions

and definitions.

All articles were sorted into the following four emergent theme groups which are:

incongruity between the gender role and the leader role, prejudice towards female leaders,

gender equality practices and leadership development programs.

All information retrieved was placed into matrices (i.e., tables) to allow better

comprehension of the topic and to link all thematic conclusions logically. The results of

the review were synthesised in different categories to depict how different themes are

interrelated. Furthermore, the results were summarised to offer thematic propositions.

Sample

In total, 45 articles were finally selected in this analysis. The number of articles (with some

overlap) that focus on specific themes is as follows: incongruity between female and leader

roles (n= 18), prejudice (n=17), gender equality (n=7) and leadership development

programmes (n=6). Table II 2 presents an overview of key themes, authors and journals of

the selected articles.

Insert Table II 2 about here

Key themes and development of theoretical framework

Billing and Alvesson (2000) suggest that leadership and management are dominated by men,

and conventionally constructed around masculine norms. This relegates what is socially

perceived as feminine to the less privileged positions. In light of this, and guided by our

9

research question, this section highlights the key themes identified in the literature review.

This includes a discussion of the incongruity between gender role and leader role stereotypes,

and how a mismatch may lead to prejudice against female leaders. Also, it presents how

gender equality practices and leadership development programmes may address prejudicial

evaluations against female leaders.

The incongruity in female-leader role stereotypes

Conventional readings of gender role for women include gentleness, sensitivity and soft skills

(caring and empathy) (Billing, 2011; Dyer et al., 2010; Muhr, 2011). These traits (i.e.,

socially-defined and biologically-created) are in contrast to the masculinity of leadership

which in turn results “in negative performance expectations for women” (Peus et al., 2015, p.

56). This is also highlighted in earlier theoretical premises and studies. For example, the

Think Manager–Think Male paradigm shows that the successful middle managers are

stereotyped to possess characteristics and attitudes more commonly ascribed to men than to

women (Schein, 1973).

Further, as Benschop and Doorewaard (1998) show, gender subtext is a concept that

“enables better understanding of the persistence of gender distinctions in organisations” and

also offers insights into the process of producing this distinction (p. 788). Benschop and

Doorewaard (2012) examined whether gender subtext is useful when studying the process of

gender segregations in organisations and to confront their earlier elaboration of the concept

with more recent theories and insights. Their study suggests that the notion of ‘gender

subtext’ - as a power‐based set of arrangements that reproduce gender distinctions - may

capitalise from the recent theorising on gender in organisations and hence they offer a

new term i.e., gender plus subtext. This concept takes the obstacle of different inequalities

into account by showing that gender is one important part, but not the only one, of

inequality at work. Given that the present paper follows the basic notion of RCT, we

10

acknowledge that gender inequality is just one factor (among many others) that may lead to

the lack of women in leadership.

A growing body of literature touches on the mismatch between the female and leader

role stereotypes. Koenig et al. (2011) argue that the general beliefs about the linkage between

typically masculine skills and leadership success is one of the causes that lead to negative

prejudicial evaluation of women’s abilities to hold leadership positions (Askehave and

Zethsen, 2014). Therefore, the contradictions between the typical female role (i.e. staying at

home and taking care of others) and the typical employee role (i.e. spending time outside the

home) may adversely affect women’s career advancement (Diekman and Schneider, 2010).

This establishes a tendency towards the merits that male leaders have due to their natural

masculine abilities (Muller-Kahle and Schiehll, 2013).

Drawing on macro and micro domains in gender research, Joshi et al. (2015)

conducted a meta-analytical study to explore whether the industry mitigates (or exacerbates)

variances in performance evaluations between males and females. They suggest that the

industry plays a key role in shaping gender practices in organisations. For example, in a

masculine task environment, males have more opportunities to emerge as leaders (Ho et al.,

2012). According to a meta-analysis conducted by Eagly and Carli (2003), male evaluators in

masculine dominated organisations may discriminate against women more than female

evaluators. In other words, stereotyping women as caring and relational (Marshall, 2011) may

put women in risk in a typically masculine industry (e.g., construction). Thus, the challenges

facing women in accessing leadership roles stem from prejudicial evaluations that they

encounter due to the inconsistency between feminine features (e.g., caring, sensitive and

warm) and leader/masculine traits (e.g., assertive, forceful and self-reliant) (Eagly and Carli,

2003). This means that exhibiting agentic features, such as assertiveness and dominance,

advantages men over women in leadership evaluations (Schaumberg and Flynn, 2016).

11

In light of the foregoing discussion, our review points towards the mismatch between

several traits linked with females and the skills attached with leaders. Hence, the first

proposition is:

Proposition 1a: In typical masculine tasks such as leadership, people stereotype

female traits in a way that mismatches with the attributes needed to succeed in these tasks.

Although previous research has highlighted some differences between female and

male CEOs in terms of leadership skills (Katila and Eriksson, 2013; Lawson and Lips, 2014),

more recent studies see femininity in the workplace as rearranged, incorporating both

conventional masculine and feminine behaviours (Hirst and Schwabenland, 2018). This

suggests that prejudice against female leaders may change (Marco, 2012) through serious

alteration in the conventional gender stereotypes (Chizema et al., 2015). For example, and in

contrast to the main notion of the role congruity theory, Marco (2012) notes that women have

better managerial skills and thus, the glass ceiling that prevents women from getting

promotion has been shattered. As Eagly and Karau (2002) note, congruity in female-leader

role stereotypes may enhance women’s success in leadership tasks and their involvement in

the workplace, which as Duffy et al. (2015) points out, is now the expectation rather than the

exception. Further, in their study that examines linkages between leadership and

communality, Schaumberg and Flynn (2016) note that because agentic traits are essential to

leadership assessment, one might postulate that agentic women would be evaluated as

successful leaders.

Chaturvedi et al. (2012) examine the heritability of leadership emergence. According

to their genetic experiment study, females “appear to be as genetically prone to emerge as a

leader” (p. 228) even though they are usually stereotyped in an incongruent way with the

leadership role.

12

This stream of research, which deviates from the basic idea of RCT, leads us to

conclude that in more feminine-oriented organisations, there are linkages between some

leadership roles and communal skills, such as empathy, collaboration and long-term thinking.

This adds to the notion of the glass cliff by showing that traditionally feminine traits, such as

being understanding, intuitive and tactful, may be seen as particularly desirable for leaders,

not only during times of crisis (Ryan et al., 2011), but also in feminine-dominated

environments. Hence, a subsequentthe following proposition is offered:

Subsequent pProposition 1ba: In feminine organisations, people stereotype female

skills in a way that match with the leader role stereotypes.

Prejudice towards female leaders

Studies on gender stereotypes and their consequences have gained significance in recent

decades, and scholars are paying further attention to this topic (e.g., Douglas, 2012; Kelan,

2010; Liu et al., 2015; Vinkenburg et al., 2011). Stereotypes may result in bias, an inaccurate

assessment reflecting a generalization rather than an individual’s true skills and abilities

(Koch et al., 2015). This section contextualises how prejudicial evaluations negatively affect

female leaders.

A distinctive feature of RCT is that prejudice against women occurs because of the

‘non-feminine’ features associated with successful leaders. A large body of research shows

that women encountering severe prejudice stems from violating gender stereotypes (Keck and

Babcock, 2018). This type of prejudice may prevent women from emerging as leaders, and

decrease their effectiveness as either potential or actual leaders (Eagly and Karau, 2002).

According to Eagly and Carli (2003), “prejudice consists of unfair evaluation of a

group of people based on stereotypical judgments of the group rather than the behaviour or

qualifications of its individual members” (p. 818). In other words, prejudice reflects a

13

tendency to perceive female leaders less favourably than males (Eagly and Karau, 2002). In

specific, gender prejudice can be explained in terms of prescriptive and descriptive aspects

i.e., characteristics believed to be in and preferred to be in each sex. Therefore, if the

characteristics that are believed to be in women do not match with the characteristics that are

believed to be in leadership, prejudice is a natural outcome (Eagly and Karau, 2002).

In the Arab region, women are generally expected to balance their gender role with

their social role (e.g., as workers) (Grünenfelder, 2013). Glass and Cook’s (2016) study

advances scholarship on women and leadership by exploring the opportunities and challenges

women face post-promotion. Based on a comparison of the career trajectories of females and

males and drawing on in-depth interviews with female leaders, they note that the performance

of females is scrutinised more than males, and “this degree of scrutiny may weaken women's

ability to lead effectively and may increase their turnover” (p. 3). Coronel et al. (2010) note

that some obstacles stemming from the dual roles of mother and professional may lead

women to face challenges, such as the lack of support and flexibility to advance their

leadership qualities. In particular, women are stereotyped as more nurturing and

communicating (Gallant, 2014) and, therefore, high positions in organisations are still a

masculine domain (Ross-Smith and Huppatz 2010).

Building on theories of intersectionality and drawing on an analysis of life stories for

four females, Benschop et al. (2010) focus on the situation of women in business places.

They note that in the public sector, women are expected to adopt more masculine behaviours

to secure their advancement and behave modestly in their behaviour (see also, Brannan and

Priola, 2012). Hence, it is noticeable that women are disadvantaged in masculine dominated

work place (Wessel et al., 2014). Koch et al. (2015) support this by showing that men are

preferred for male-dominated jobs (i.e., gender-role congruity bias), whereas no strong

preference for either gender is found for female-dominated or integrated jobs.

14

From an RCT perspective, men tend to be associated with agentic characteristics,

which capture achievement-oriented tendencies, whereas women tend to be associated with

communal attributes, which capture concern with the welfare of others (Gupta et al., 2018).

This mismatch explains the source of prejudice towards female leaders (Eagly and Karau,

2002). In light of the foregoing discussion, the following propositions are developed:

Proposition 2: The variance in the female gender role and the leader role stereotypes

leads to prejudicial evaluations against potential or actual female leaders.

Proposition 3a: The perceived female-leader roles mismatch (i.e., prejudice) prevents

females from emerging as effective leaders.

While the above propositions are in line with the role congruity theory, our review

also points towards less prejudicial assessments against female leaders. The changing nature

of leadership is expected to grant women more space and inclusion than in the past. Davison

and Burke (2000) argue that prejudice against females is not always the case. The notion of

role incongruity between female role and leader role may become weaker because new

features of effective leadership may become more harmonious with the female role (Eagly

and Carli, 2003). Eagly and Karau (2002) acknowledge that prejudice is changing and

women in some situations may not encounter unfair evaluation. Given that prejudice (i.e.

against potential female leaders) stems from the inconsistency between the female role and

the leader role, the more congruence between these roles, the lesser prejudice would occur

against female leaders.

Glass and Cook (2016) conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 20

female leaders in different sectors. They argue that gender role stereotypes and gender

biases can be reduced in a mixed-gender environment, and thus pressure on female

15

leaders as well as prejudicial evaluations would be reduced. In addition, Vial et al.

(2018) find that female respondents show a less prejudicial evaluation towards female

supervisors compared to male supervisors. As a result, in more feminine-dominated

workplaces, women may be seen as having great potential to emerge as leaders. Hence,

subsequent the following propositions are offered:

Subsequent pProposition 3bab: In feminine-dominated workplaces, harmony in

female-leader role stereotype will reduce negative prejudicial evaluations against female

leaders.

Subsequent pProposition 3cbc:: Due to less prejudicial evaluations against potential

or actual female leaders in feminine-dominated workplaces, females will have more

chances to emerge as effective leaders.

Gender equality practices

Gender equality, or lack thereof, may be seen as a consequence of gender practices that

lead to equal (or unequal) treatment of men and women. Women’s participation in

leadership positions is influenced by the presence of equality or inequality practices

(Murray and Syed, 2010).

Although women and men sometimes occupy similar or the same jobs, women

usually encounter inequality in promotion and salaries due to the glass ceiling and firewall

metaphors (Bendl and Schmidt, 2010). A more accurate metaphor, as presented by Acker

(2009), is the ‘inequality regimes’ that stands for gender, class and race hurdles that obstruct

women's advancement at all levels of organisational hierarchy. Thus, although women’s

participation in the workplace has increased quantitatively and qualitatively, they still face

16

barriers that stem from discrimination and inequality practices. Guimarães et al. (2016)

conducted a study to scrutinise gender gap in tourism sector. Their findings show that even

when women are better educated than men, they encounter both vertical and horizontal

segregations. These inequality practices restrict women’s upward mobility and this may

explain their dearth in leadership positions.

Research shows that females in executive levels are not in total control of their

positions due to inequality regimes i.e., interlocked processes that lead to continuing

inequalities in organisations (Acker, 2006; Murray and Syed, 2010). As an attempt to reform

such inequalities, Acker (2006) takes a step forward to explain the process of producing

gender inequality in organisations. She presents the idea of “inequality regimes” as an

analytical approach to understand the reasons of such inequalities in organisations.

In terms of empirical studies, Campos-Soria et al. (2015) found a negative

relationship between gender inequality and women’s promotion to higher levels. Further

empirical findings show that male workers have more opportunities for promotion than

females (Cook and Glass, 2014) because of discrimination and gender inequality practices.

Based on their study of gender practices in Turkey and Pakistan, Özbilgin et al.

(2012) show that gender inequality, besides stemming from socio-cultural beliefs and

traditions, is also strongly impacted by regulation and international agreements. Lyness and

Judiesch (2014) conducted a longitudinal study from 2000 to 2007 to investigate the appraisal

of 40,921 managers in 36 countries. Their results show that in egalitarian cultures, women

and men have equal opportunities to participate in the workplace.

The foregoing suggests that “in spite of robust evidence of a female penalty, evidence

of a female premium has begun to emerge” (Leslie et al., 2017, p. 403) especially when

gender equality practices exist. Thus, the fourth proposition is offered:

17

Proposition 4: Gender equality practices have a positive impact on women’s upward

mobility into leadership positions. Specifically, such practices may prevent discrimination

against females in the workplace and enable their emergence as effective leaders.

Leadership development practices

Studies, including those in psychology and sociology, have presented many explanations for

why women remain under-represented in leadership. Based on McClelland and Holland’s

(2015) study, these explanations vary widely, including individual and organisational

barriers. One barrier which faces women in organisations when being promoted to leadership

positions is the lack of leadership development practices (Chaturvedi et al., 2012).

A key priority in the contemporary organisational agenda is to advance women’s

abilities through leadership programmes (Gallant, 2014). Positive actions and initiatives are

evident in the shape of leadership development programmes for women. One major reason

for these programmes is to allow women equal opportunities in the labour-market. This

section sheds light on the linkages between leadership development programmes and

women’s upward mobility.

Empirical studies reveal that the emergence and effectiveness of female leaders in

organisations largely depend on the availability and quality of leadership development

programmes. In scrutinising the heritability of a leader’s emergence, Chaturvedi et al. (2012)

found a positive relationship between the availability of leadership programmes and the

emergence of female leaders. Chaturvedi et al. (2012) note that women’s upward mobility

into leadership ranks is restricted due to the lack of training and development programmes.

Huang and Gamble (2015) suggest that leadership development programmes are now

associated with improving women’s skills and abilities and raising their self-confidence.

Hence, formalised leadership programmes are increasingly focusing on women (Gallant,

2014).

18

Specifically, it may be assumed that men and women will be highly appreciative of

equal opportunities in training and development programmes that enhance their career

progression (Huang and Gamble, 2015). It seems, however, that even when women do

participate, they suffer difficulties because of masculine hierarchies inherent in such

programmes. Gender differences in terms of career relevant experience influence the need

and the design of leadership development programmes (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014). Overall,

organisations may pay further attention to training and development programmes to enhance

autonomy (Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2009) and support executive women (Murray and Syed,

2010).

The review suggests that offering formalised leadership programmes may raise

opportunities for females to be accepted as effective leaders. Hence, the fifth proposition is:

Proposition 5: Formalised leadership development programmes, with due

consideration of gender equality, may significantly enhance potential for females to emerge

as effective leaders.

Discussion

While our review generally confirms Eagly and Karau’s (2002) RCT model (propositions 1a, 2

and 3a), it extends RCT by (1) identifying additional constructs - i.e., gender equality

practices and leadership development programmes - that may alleviate negative

prejudicial evaluations (propositions 4 and 5), and (2) offering new insights about the

potential alignment between feminine traits and leadership success (propositions 1ba,

3bab and 3cbc). The following discussion illustrates tThis is discussed in further detail below.

19

Confirmation of the role congruity theory

The review suggests that the distinctions between the female gender role and the leader role

lead to prejudicial evaluations against women, which in turn prevent them from emerging as

leaders. Moreover, our review identifies additional constructs - i.e., gender equality practices

and leadership development programmes - that may alleviate negative prejudicial

evaluations. The theoretical framework in Figure 1 depicts the incongruity in female-leader

roles that leads to prejudice against female leaders. It also mentions that remedial practices

may address such prejudice.

Insert Figure 1 about here

It is possible to offer five key findings from this review related to RCT. The first

finding suggests that there is not always an alignment between traits linked with females and

attributes linked with leaders, and thus incongruity between female and leader roles exists

(proposition 1a). Therefore, a change in cultural beliefs that shape people’s schematic

cognition in gender stereotyping may contribute to emergence and success of female leaders.

Some examples that support this view are: Askehave and Zethsen, 2014; Eagly and Carli,

2003; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Ho et al., 2012; Muller-Kahle and Schiehll, 2013; Ritter and

Yoder, 2004.

The second and third findings suggest that inconsistency in female-leader role

stereotypes may lead to prejudicial evaluations against female leaders (proposition 2), and as

a result, they may suffer in promotion to leadership positions (proposition 3a). This suggests

that women may expect to be promoted in precarious leadership positions but have

difficulties in high leadership positions (Ryan et al., 2011). These findings are broadly in line

with the RCT, and are supported by several studies (e.g., Benschop et al., 2010; Brannan and

Priola, 2012; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Gallant, 2014; Glass and Cook, 2016; Grünenfelder,

2013; Ross-Smith and Huppatz, 2010; Wessel et al., 2014).

20

The fourth finding is that some organisational practices may facilitate the emergence

and potential of female leaders. For example, gender equality practices have a significant

impact on enabling females to be promoted to leadership levels (proposition 4). Thus, even

when females work in a masculine dominated environment, they may have more opportunity

to hold leadership positions, especially when managers and policy makers prevent gender

discrimination (e.g., Bendl and Schmidt, 2010; Broadbridge and Kerfoot, 2010; Cook and

Glass, 2014; McClelland and Holland, 2015; Murray and Syed, 2010; Özbilgin et al., 2012).

The fifth finding drawn from the review is that leadership development programmes

strongly associated with improving females’ skills and abilities may raise their self-

confidence and, therefore, they may cope better in leadership tasks (proposition 5).

Consequently, offering formalised leadership programmes largely contributes to raising

opportunities for females to be accepted as effective leaders. This is supported by studies

such as: Chaturvedi et al., (2012), Coronel et al. (2010), Fitzsimmons et al. (2014), Gallant

(2014), and Huang and Gamble (2015).

New insights on the role congruity theory

The review extends the basic notion of the role congruity theory, and suggests that in

feminine-dominated workplaces or egalitarian organisations, there are linkages between some

leadership duties and feminine skills such as empathy, collaboration and long-term thinking

(subsequent proposition 1ba) (e.g., Chaturvedi et al., 2012; Duffy et al., 2015; Marco, 2012).

The review shows that due to congruity in female-leader role stereotypes, a less prejudicial

assessment may be there against female leaders (subsequent proposition 3bab) and thus, they

may be seen as having great potential to emerge as effective leaders (subsequent proposition

3cbc). For example, Davison and Burke (2000), De Pater et al. (2010), and Glass and Cook

(2016) highlight potential advantages that female leaders have due to consistency in their

roles with leadership skills. While we are cognizant that such advantages may remain

21

confined to theory (Fletcher, 2002) in the absence of an enabling and egalitarian

environment, we argue that such enabling may be expected in organisations and societies

where positive action is practiced. Our review, thus, extends the basic notion of RCT by

showing a potential alignment in female-leader role stereotypes in feminised environment.

Conclusion

While evidence of a female advantage remains the exception (not the rule), our review

suggests that the typical gender gap may reverse under certain circumstances. Prior research

has offered limited discussion of how and why a female privilege may emerge and “when

women receive a premium instead of a penalty” (Leslie et al., 2017, p. 403). Over 140 studies

conducted across several countries, and published in journals from various theoretical lenses,

Jeong and Harrison (2017) note that understanding how firms may benefit from females in

upper echelons is not clear or consistent. The present paper has attempted to fill this gap.

We reviewed recent studies on gender and leadership to capture the on-going debate

on the inconsistency between general perceptions of leaders and women, thus explaining the

lack of women in leadership positions. However, the review extends RCT by pointing

towards practices that may address prejudicial evaluations against female leaders, such as

gender equality practices and leadership development programmes targeted at females. There

is empirical evidence for positive consequences of gender equality on women’s upward

mobility into leadership positions (e.g., Littrell and Bertsch, 2013). Indeed, in terms of the

discursive linkages between leadership and gender, the masculine image of leadership may be

addressed through leadership development programmes focused on women (e.g., Chaturvedi

et al., 2012; Huang and Gamble, 2015). This review has also highlighted the potential merits

of female leadership by showing possible alignment in female-leader role stereotypes. For

example, since female leaders are likely to manifest less hierarchical attitudes, prejudicial

22

assessments may recede in egalitarian workplaces (Koenig et al., 2011), which in turn may

reform gender stereotypes.

From a policy perspective, the theoretical framework may be used as a heuristic

model to contextually examine the lack of female leaders in certain regions (e.g., Muslim

majority countries). It may help policy makers to understand the factors that impede female

leadership and the factors that enhance women’s upward mobility into leadership positions.

This may also enable policy makers to focus on gender equality practices in organisations to

prevent discrimination against women.

Limitation and future research

A key limitation of the present study is that some concepts, such as gender role and feminine

vs. masculine stereotypes, are socially specific and can be defined very differently in the

reviewed literature, and may not adhere to the same epistemological assumptions as role

congruity theory. To address this issue in the future, researchers may wish to investigate how

and why people stereotype ‘female’ and ‘successful leader’ in certain societies, to what extent

do cultural values and traditions explain the underrepresentation of female leaders in the

workplace, and, if there are any cultural variations in accepting females as leaders. This

warrants future research to note that the conception of gender is cultural and social specific.

Another limitation is that because the evidence provided by the RCT is based on the

small size of prejudice demonstrated in many of the meta-analyses and individual studies that

Eagly and Karau (2002) have cited, prejudice alone cannot explain the lack of women in

high-level leadership. In this study, we acknowledge that gender inequality is just one factor

(among many others) that may lead to the lack of women in leadership. Therefore, further

research should foster more efforts to examine other reasons that contribute to the

underrepresentation of women in leadership positions.

23

Finally, given that traits such as individualism, assertiveness, and dominance are

socially ascribed to men and generally understood as masculine, while traits associated with

new models of leadership such as empathy, capacity for listening and relational ability are

generally ascribed to women and understood as feminine, one major question arises: why, if

women manifest better leadership abilities, are they under-represented in leadership ranks?

Overall, the review may encourage future researchers to reflect critically on how theoretical

and practical approaches to leadership may be inherently and inadvertently gender biased or

contextually constrained.

24

References

Acker, J. (2006), “Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations”, Gender &

Society, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 441-464.

Acker, J. (2009), “From glass ceiling to inequality regimes”, Sociologie du Travail, Vol. 51

No. 2, pp. 199-217.

Askehave, I. and Zethsen, K.K. (2014), “Gendered constructions of leadership in Danish job

advertisements”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 531-545.

Bendl, R. and Schmidt, A. (2010), “From 'glass ceilings' to 'firewalls' - different metaphors

for describing discrimination”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp.

612-634.

Benschop, Y. and Doorewaard, H. (1998), “Covered by equality: The gender subtext of

organizations”, Organization Studies, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 787-805.

Benschop, Y.W.M. and Doorewaard, J.A.C.M. and Essers, C. (2010), “Female ethnicity:

Understanding Muslim immigrant businesswomen in the Netherlands”, Gender, Work

& Organization, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 320-339.

Benschop, Y. and Doorewaard, H. (2012), “Gender subtext revisited”, Equality, Diversity

and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 225-235.

Billing, Y.D. and Alvesson, M. (2000), "Questioning the notion of feminine leadership: A

critical perspective on the gender labelling of leadership", Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 144-157.

Billing, Y.D. (2011), "Are women in management victims of the phantom of the male

norm?", Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 298-317.

Brannan, M. and Priola, V. (2012), “‘Girls who do boys like they're girls’? Exploring the role

of gender in the junior management of contemporary service work”, Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 119-141.

25

Broadbridge, A. and Kerfoot, D. (2010), “Editorial: Women and men in management: Issues

for the 21st century”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 475-480.

Calás, M. B. and Smircich, L. (1996), From the ‘woman’s point of view’: Feminist

approaches to organization studies. Studying Organization: Theory & Method, SAGE

publication, London.

Campos-Soria, J.A., García-Pozo, A. and Sánchez-Ollero, J.L. (2015), “Gender wage

inequality and labour mobility in the hospitality sector”, International Journal of

Hospitality Management, Vol. 49, pp. 73-82.

CABS (2015), “Academic journal guide: Chartered Association of Business Schools”,

available at: http://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2015/

Chaturvedi, S., Zyphur, M.J., Arvey, R.D., Avolio, B.J. and Larsson, G. (2012), “The

heritability of emergent leadership: Age and gender as moderating factors”, The

Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 219-232.

Chizema, A., Kamuriwo, D.S. and Shinozawa, Y. (2015), “Women on corporate boards

around the world: Triggers and barriers”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 6,

pp. 1051-1065.

Cook, A. and Glass, C. (2014), “Women and top leadership positions: Towards an

institutional analysis”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 91-103.

Coronel, J.M., Moreno, E. and Carrasco, M.J. (2010), “Work-family conflicts and the

organizational work culture as barriers to women educational managers”, Gender,

Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 219-239.

De Pater, I.E., Van Vianen, A.E.M. and Bechtoldt, M.N. (2010), “Gender differences in job

challenge: A matter of task allocation”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 4,

pp. 433-453.

26

Diekman, A.B. and Schneider, M.C. (2010), “A social role theory perspective on gender gaps

in political attitudes”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 486-497.

Douglas, C. (2012), “The moderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the

leadership behavior–leader effectiveness relationships”, The Leadership Quarterly,

Vol. 23 No. 1, p. 163.

Du, X. (2016), “Does Confucianism reduce board gender diversity? Firm-level evidence from

China”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 136 No. 2, pp. 399-436.

Duffy, L.N., Kline, C.S., Mowatt, R.A. and Chancellor, H.C. (2015), “Women in tourism:

Shifting gender ideology in the DR”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 52 pp. 72-86.

Dyer, S., McDowell, L. and Batnitzky, A. (2010), “The impact of migration on the gendering

of service work: The case of a west London hotel”, Gender, Work & Organization,

Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 635-657.

Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2003), “The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the

evidence”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 807-834.

Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders”, Psychological Review, Vol. 109 No. 3, pp. 573-598.

Ferguson, T. W. (2018), “Female leadership and role congruity within the clergy: Communal

leaders experience no gender differences yet agentic women continue to suffer

backlash”, Sex Roles, Vol. 78 No. 5-6, pp. 409-422.

Fitzsimmons, T.W., Callan, V.J. and Paulsen, N. (2014), “Gender disparity in the C-suite: Do

male and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top?”, The Leadership

Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 245-266.

Fletcher, J. K. (2002), The greatly exaggerated demise of heroic leadership: Gender, power,

and the myth of the female advantage, CGO Insights, Boston.

27

Gallant, A. (2014), “Symbolic interactions and the development of women leaders in higher

education”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 203-216.

Garcia-Retamero, R. and López-Zafra, E. (2006), “Prejudice against women in male-

congenial environments: Perceptions of gender role congruity in leadership”, Sex

Roles, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 51-61.

Glass, C. and Cook, A. (2016), “Leading at the top: Understanding women's challenges

above the glass ceiling”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 51-63.

Grünenfelder, J. (2013), “Negotiating gender relations: Muslim women and formal

employment in Pakistan’s rural development sector”, Gender, Work & Organization,

Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 599-615.

Guimarães, C.R.F.F. and Silva, J.R. (2016), “Pay gap by gender in the tourism industry of

Brazil”, Tourism Management, Vol. 52, pp. 440-450.

Gupta, V.K., Han, S., Mortal, S.C., Silveri, S. and Turban, D.B. (2018), "Do women CEOs

face greater threat of shareholder activism compared to male CEOs? A role congruity

perspective", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 228-236.

Harvey Wingfield, A. and Myles, R.L. (2014), "Still a Man's World? Revisiting Men Who

Do Women's Work: Still a Man's World?", Sociology Compass, Vol. 8 No. 10, pp.

1206-1215.

Hackett, S.M. and Dilts, D.M. (2004), “A systematic review of business incubation research”,

The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 55-82.

Hirst, A. and Schwabenland, C. (2018), "Doing gender in the ‘new office’", Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 159-176.

Ho, G.C., Shih, M. and Walters, D.J. (2012), “Labels and leaders: The influence of framing

on leadership emergence”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 943-952.

28

Huang, Q. and Gamble, J. (2015), “Social expectations, gender and job satisfaction: Front‐

line employees in China's retail sector”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol.

25 No. 3, pp. 331-347.

Jeong, S. and Harrison, D. (2017), "Glass breaking, strategy making, and value creating:

meta-analytic outcomes of women as CEOS and TMT members", Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 1219.

Joshi, A., Son, J. and Roh, H. (2015), "When Can Women Close the Gap? A Meta-Analytic

Test of Sex Differences in Performance and Rewards", Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 58 No. 5, pp. 1516-1545.

Katila, S. and Eriksson, P. (2013), “He is a firm, Strong‐Minded and empowering leader, but

is she? Gendered positioning of female and male CEOs”, Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 71-84.

Keck, S. and Babcock, L. (2018), “Who gets the benefit of the doubt? The impact of causal

reasoning depth on how violations of gender stereotypes are evaluated”, Journal of

Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 276-291.

Kelan, E.K. (2010), “Gender logic and (un)doing gender at work”, Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 174-194.

Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A.H., Mitchell, A.A. and Ristikari, T. (2011), “Are leader stereotypes

masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms”, Psychological Bulletin,

Vol. 137 No. 4, pp. 616-642.

Koch, A.J., D'Mello, S.D. and Sackett, P.R. (2015), "A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes

and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making", The Journal

of applied psychology, Vol. 100 No. 1, pp. 128-161.

29

Kuvaas, B. and Dysvik, A. (2009), “Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic

motivation and work performance”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 19

No. 3, pp. 217-236.

Lawson, K.M. and Lips, H.M. (2014), "The role of self-perceived agency and job

attainability in women's impressions of successful women in masculine occupations:

Agency and impressions of successful women", Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 433-441.

Leitch, C. and Stead, V. (2016), “Call for papers: Special issue of leadership: gender and

leadership”, Leadership, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 127–128.

Leslie, L.M., Manchester, C.F. and Dahm, P.C. (2017), "Why and when does the gender gap

reverse? Diversity goals and the pay premium for high potential women", Academy of

Management Journal, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 402.

Liu, H., Cutcher, L. and Grant, D. (2015), “Doing authenticity: The gendered construction of

authentic leadership”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 237-255.

Lyness, K.S. and Judiesch, M.K. (2014), “Gender egalitarianism and work–life balance for

managers: Multisource perspectives in 36 countries”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 63

No. 1, pp. 96-129.

Marco, R. (2012), “Gender and economic performance: Evidence from the Spanish hotel

industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 981-

989.

Marshall, J. (2011), “En-gendering notions of leadership for sustainability”, Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 263-281.

Mavin, S. and Grandy, G. (2016), “Women elite leaders doing respectable business

femininity: How privilege is conferred, contested and defended through the body:

30

Women elite leaders doing respectable business femininity”, Gender, Work &

Organization, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 379-396.

McClelland, S.I. and Holland, K.J. (2015), “You, me, or her: Leaders' perceptions of

responsibility for increasing gender diversity in STEM departments”, Psychology of

Women Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, p. 210.

Metcalfe, B. D. (2008), “Women, management and globalization in the Middle East”,

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 85-100.

Muhr, S. L. (2011), “Caught in the gendered machine: On the masculine and feminine in

cyborg leadership”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 337-357.

Muller-Kahle, M.I. and Schiehll, E. (2013), “Gaining the ultimate power edge: Women in the

dual role of CEO and chair”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 666-679.

Murray, P.A. and Syed, J. (2010), “Gendered observations and experiences in executive

women's work”, Human Resource Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 277-293.

Mulvaney, R. H., O’Neill, J. W., Cleveland, J. N. and Crouter, A. C. (2007), “A model of

work-family dynamics of hotel managers”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 34 No.

1, pp. 66-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.annals.2006.07.002.

Özbilgin, M.F., Syed, J., Ali, F. and Torunoglu, D. (2012), “International transfer of policies

and practices of gender equality in employment to and among Muslim majority

countries”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 345-369.

Parris, D.L. and Peachey, J.W. (2013), “A systematic literature review of servant leadership

theory in organizational contexts”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 113 No. 3, pp.

377-393.

Peus, C., Braun, S. and Knipfer, K. (2015), “On becoming a leader in Asia and America:

Empirical evidence from women managers”, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp.

55-67.

31

Ragins, B. R. and Sundstrom, E. (1989), “Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal

perspective”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 51-88.

Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A., Hersby, M.D. and Bongiorno, R. (2011), "Think Crisis-Think

Female: The Glass Cliff and Contextual Variation in the Think Manager-Think Male

Stereotype", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 470-484.

Ritter, B.A. and Yoder, J.D. (2004), “Gender differences in leader emergence persist even for

dominant women: An updated confirmation of role congruity theory”, Psychology of

Women Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 187-193.

Ross-Smith, A. and Huppatz, K. (2010), “Management, women and gender capital”, Gender,

Work & Organization, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 547-566.

Schaumberg, R.L. and Flynn, F.J. (2016), "Self-reliance: A Gender Perspective on its

Relationship to Communality and Leadership Evaluations", Academy of Management

Journal, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 1859.

Schein, V.E. (1973), "The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite

management characteristics", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 95-

100.

United Nations Development Programme. (2017), Gender Empowerment Measure, New

York: Author.

Vinkenburg, C.J., van Engen, M.L., Eagly, A.H. and Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2011), “An

exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational

leadership a route to women's promotion?”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1,

pp. 10-21.

Vial, A.C., Brescoll, V.L., Napier, J.L., Dovidio, J.F. and Tyler, T.R. (2018), "Differential

support for female supervisors among men and women", Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 103 No. 2, pp. 215-227.

32

Weed, M. (2005), ““Meta interpretation”: A method for interpretive synthesis of qualitative

research”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1–21.

Wessel, J.L., Hagiwara, N., Ryan, A.M. and Kermond, C.M. (2014), “Should women

applicants “man up” for traditionally masculine fields? Effectiveness of two verbal

identity management strategies”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp.

243-255.

33

Table I1. Relevant articles published in the selected ABS ranked journals from 2010 to 2018

ABS Ranking * Year of Publication

Journal 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Academy of Management Journal

4 * - - - - - 1 1 2 -

Gender, work & Organization

3 8 3 2 2 3 1 1 - 1

Human Resource Management Journal

4 1 - - - - 1 - - -

Journal of Applied Psychology

4 - 1 - - 1 1 - - 2

Journal of Organizational Behavior

4 - - - - - - - - 1

Leadership Quarterly 4 - 1 3 1 1 2 1 - -

Psychology of Women Quarterly

3 1 - - - 1 1 - - -

34

Table II2. Themes, authors and journals included in the selective literature review[Author/s, publication year] IFLRS PTFL GEP LDPs JournalSource Askehave and Zethsen (2014) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationBendl and Schmidt (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationBenschop et al. (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationBilling (2011) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationBrannan and Priola (2012) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationBroadbridge and Kerfoot (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationChaturvedi et al. (2012) X X Leadership QuarterlyChizema et al. (2015) X Leadership QuarterlyCook and Glass (2014) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationCoronel et al. (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationDe Pater et al. (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationDiekman and Schneider (2010) X Psychology of Women QuarterlyDouglas (2012) X Leadership QuarterlyDyer et al. (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationFitzsimmons et al. (2014) X Leadership QuarterlyGallant (2014) X X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationGlass and Cook (2016) X Leadership QuarterlyGrünenfelder (2013) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationGupta et al. (2018) X Journal of Applied Psychology Hirst and Schwabenland (2018) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationHo et al. (2012) X Leadership QuarterlyHuang and Gamble (2015) X Human Resource Management JournalJeong and Harrison (2017) X Academy of Management JournalJoshi et al. (2015) X Academy of Management JournalKatila and Eriksson (2013) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationKeck and Babcock (2018) X Journal of Organizational Behavior Kelan (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationKoch et al. (2015) X Journal of Applied Psychology Lawson and Lips (2014) X Journal of Applied Psychology Leslie et al. (2017) X Academy of Management JournalLiu et al. (2015) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationMarshall (2011) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationMavin and Grandy (2016) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationMcClelland and Holland (2015) X Psychology of Women QuarterlyMuhr (2011) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationMuller-Kahle and Schiehll (2013) X Leadership QuarterlyMurray and Syed (2010) X X Human Resource Management JournalÖzbilgin et al. (2012) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationPeus et al. (2015) X Leadership QuarterlyRyan et al. (2011) X Journal of Applied Psychology Ross-Smith and Huppatz (2010) X Gender, Wwork & OrganizationSchaumberg and Flynn (2016) X Academy of Management JournalVial et al. (2018) X Journal of Applied PsychologyVinkenburg et al. (2011) X Leadership QuarterlyWessel et al. (2014) X Psychology of Women QuarterlyNotes: IFLRS = Incongruity in female-leader role stereotypes; PTFL = Prejudice towards female leaders; GEP = Gender equality practices; LDPs Leadership development programmes

35

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

Eagly and Carli (2003)Eagly and Karau (2002)

Gallant (2014)Huang and Gamble (2015)

Bendl and Schmidt (2010)McClelland and Holland (2015)Özbilgin et al. (2012)

Glass and Cook (2016)Wessel et al. (2014)

Eagly and Karau (2002)Gallant (2014)Muller-Kahle and Schiehll (2013)

Proposition 5Proposition 4

Proposition 2

Proposition 1a

Notes:

Discriminatory practices against female leadersRemedial practices for female leaders

Leadership development practices

This will positively impact the:

Gender equality practices

This will positively impact the:

Emergence of female leaders

Effectiveness of female leaders

Prejudice against female leaders(Lowered evaluations of women as actual or potential leaders)

This will negatively impact the:

Variances in these roles may lead to

IncongruenceMen and leaders match

Women and leaders mismatch

+/-+/-+/-+/-

Leader’s role stereotyped as:AssertiveForceful

MasculineSelf-reliant

Female’s role stereotyped as:Caring

SensitiveFeminine

Warm

Proposition 3a

36