Once More: The Rise of Female Leaders
The choice of a woman for vice president on the 2020 Democratic ticket once more confronts the nation with questions about women as leaders. The public must think about the qualifications of Kamala Harris, a U.S. senator who happens to be a woman with immigrant parents, her mother from India and her father from Jamaica. Aside from her qualifications as a politician, will these features of her gender and ethnic identities disadvantage or advantage her in the race for the White House?
Stereotypes about leaders and women
A classic analysis of gender and leadership suggests that Harris’s identity as a woman may disadvantage her because people are more uncertain about women’s than men’s abilities to be effective leaders (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Underlying this uncertainty is an incongruity—or disconnect—between the cultural construals of women and the requirements of leader roles.
Worldwide, people expect women to be the more communal sex—warm, supportive, and kind—and men to be the more agentic sex—assertive, dominant, and authoritative (Williams and Best, 1990). To the surprise of some observers, these gender stereotypes have not disappeared in the United States as women’s roles have changed. Representative U.S. public opinion polls show that the expectation that women are the more communal sex has increased since the mid-20th century, while the expectation that men are the more agentic sex has held steady (Eagly et al., 2019). People also ascribe mainly agentic qualities to leaders, with the result that beliefs about leaders are more similar to beliefs about men than women (Koenig et al., 2011). Therein lies the cultural incongruity between women and leadership.
Nearly a half century ago, this incongruity appeared in stark terms in Schein’s (1973) “think manager, think male” experiments. In this research, separate groups of participants rated “men in general,” “women in general,” or “successful middle managers” on a list of 92 traits. Correlational analyses then showed that the traits ascribed to managers were more similar to those ascribed to men than women. Schein and other researchers replicated this provocative experiment many times, sometimes with “successful middle managers” replaced by other leader roles (e.g., CEOs, managers of successful companies).
A meta-analysis of 40 studies in the Schein paradigm revealed that, over the years, people have gained somewhat stronger expectations that leaders have communal as well as agentic traits (Koenig et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the traits ascribed to leaders have remained predominantly agentic, with the result that leaders continue to be regarded as more like men than women. This expectation of masculinity holds for political leaders as well as other types of leaders, most especially for high offices such as the presidency and vice presidency (Dittmar, 2016; Schneider, and Bos, 2014). This analysis suggests continuing prejudice so that women leaders seem less legitimate than their male counterparts, producing reduced cooperation and influence (Vial et al., 2016).
Despite this evidence of the cultural masculinity of leader roles, polls have found attitudinal shifts favorable to women leaders. For example, a frequent Gallup poll question asks, “If you were taking a new job and had your choice of a boss, would you prefer to work for a man or woman?” (Brenan, 2017). The responses from the first presentation of this question in 1953 through the most recent poll in 2017 show a dramatic decline in the preference for male over female bosses, while indifference about the sex of the boss has increased considerably. In the 2017 poll, 55% of respondents volunteered that they would have no gender preference. Nearly equal percentages favored each sex, with 23% preferring a man and 21% preferring a woman (see Figure 1). Yet, as recently as the 1980s, preference for male over female bosses was as large as 34 points. Similarly, in other polls, willingness to vote for a well-qualified woman for president has increased from only 33% in 1937 to 94% in 2019 (Saad, 2019). However, interpretations of these data should consider that these two very direct questions—about bosses and presidents—may elicit some social pressure to appear unbiased.
Figure 1: Majority of Americans Have No Gender Preference for Boss
Intersections of gender and ethnicity
Relevant to Kamala Harris, the challenges of gender stereotypes for women leaders are compounded by their other cultural identities. As Rosette et al. (2016) found, stereotypes about women vary considerably by race and ethnicity in ways that are relevant to leadership. Specifically, considering women’s race, the strongest stereotypic theme is agency for African American women (the “strong Black woman”), intelligence for Asian American women, and communion for White women (see also Ghavami & Peplau, 2012). However, stereotypes of Indian Americans (as opposed to the broader category of Asian Americans) are quite underdeveloped in the United States (Phills et al., 2018), given most Americans’ limited experience with this ethnic subgroup and its relatively small size (Le, 2020). Although It would be fortunate for Harris if the public would accord her agency and intelligence because of her ethnic identities and communion because of her female identity, research suggests that people typically pay attention to just one social identity or, at most, one intersection of identities at a time, depending on the situation (Petsko and Bodenhausen, 2020). Nevertheless, there is the possibility that Harris could collect the positive qualities of her various identities, giving her greater advantage than would be accorded to a White woman (Schneider and Bos, 2019).
Given that Black women are expected to be strong and assertive, they may not experience the agency restrictions that other women do. In fact, in an experiment portraying Black and White business executives as dominant or communal, the Black women did not experience backlash for dominance to the same extent as the White women did (Livingston et al., 2012). Nevertheless, experimental research has also suggested that Black women may be penalized more than White women for failures and mistakes made on the job (Rosette and Livingston, 2012).
Responses to stereotypical and nonstereotypical behavior
Additional challenges follow from gender stereotypes being prescriptive as well as descriptive: People thus prefer that women be nice and kind and not overtly tough or dominating (Prentice and Carranza, 2002; Rudman et al., 2012). These prescriptions present an agency paradox to aspiring women. On one hand, women, considered as a general social category, are thought to lack the agency required to be an effective leader; on the other hand, a woman’s strong display of agency often brings disapproval (Eagly and Carli, 2007). Such women may be accused of being “nasty” or “bitchy” and not at all nice, as illustrated by some of the reactions to Kamala Harris today and to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. Demonstrating this problem, a meta-analysis of 63 studies of backlash against women found that women, but not men, receive backlash for explicit displays of dominance, although they largely escape such reactions if they display dominance in more subtle and indirect ways (Williams and Tiedens, 2016). This resistance to women’s overt dominance usually doesn’t target their competence but their audacity in seeking or achieving political office, as in the “nasty woman” epithet. As for competence, female candidates for office are, on the average, objectively better qualified than their male counterparts (Bauer, 2019), and Americans now accord women in general as much, if not somewhat more, competence as men (Eagly et al., 2019).
Along with curbing overt displays of dominance, one way that women leaders boost their likability and thereby increase their influence is to convey interpersonal warmth. Because warm women are better liked, female leaders gain from displaying an amalgam of agentic and communal qualities. For example, research by Johnson et al. (2008) showed that female leaders had to show both communion and agency to be judged as effective, whereas male leaders had to show only agency.
Pressures on women leaders, especially White women, to conform to expectations to be communal but not especially agentic likely contribute to their reliance on more democratic and participative leadership styles. Meta-analyses on leadership styles thus found that female leaders tended to be more democratic, collaborative, and participative than male leaders—that is, they more often invited input from others and attempted to build consensus (Eagly and Johnson, 1990; van Engen and Willemsen, 2004). Male leaders, in contrast, were more likely to have a more autocratic and directive approach. Women thus did more of what is sometimes called “leading from behind,” that is, working with others to reach collective decisions.
Another meta-analysis found that women leaders also placed more emphasis on developing positive relationships with others and tended to use more positive incentives than men and fewer threats, or negative incentives (Eagly et al., 2003). Also, women were less likely than men to avoid or delay making decisions or to show lack of involvement. All of these generalizations about leadership style derive from leaders in many different types of groups and organizations and thus may not hold for all women and men. Yet, showing robustness in the pattern of leader behavior found by Eagly et al. (2003), similar findings emerged in a study of people’s beliefs about female and male leadership styles, suggesting that people are generally aware of these relatively subtle behavioral differences (Vinkenburg et al., 2011).
The future for women as leaders
Despite barriers, women are rising into leadership roles in many nations, even at the tops of organizations and governments. The media give frequent coverage to business leaders such as Sheryl Sandberg, prime ministers such as Angela Merkel, and heads of international organizations such as Christine Lagarde. Their presence gives the lie to the glass ceiling metaphor: There is no absolute barrier preventing women from attaining such positions. Moreover, in the United States, women are now 30% of college and university presidents (Gardner, 2019) and 34% of the Senior Executive Service of the federal government (U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 2017). In nonprofit organizations, women are 45% of chief executive officers (Henry, 2019). Overall, women constitute 40% of managers and 28% of chief executives when all organizations are considered (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Despite these statistics, parity in some leader roles is still a distant goal: Only 6% of the chief executive officers in the S&P 500 are women (Catalyst, 2020), and only 24% of the members of U.S. Congress (Center for American Women and Politics, 2020).
Given this uneven progress, a superior metaphor for women’s paths to leadership is a labyrinth (Eagly and Carli, 2007). Unlike a glass ceiling, a labyrinth allows some women to reach high levels of leadership, yet the walls of the labyrinth remain in place to challenge the women who follow. If the paths that men take are construed as an open road (perhaps with a few potholes along the way), the labyrinth that women traverse presents a more difficult path. Some women are unable to chart their way through and get stuck in dead ends, and others may advance by persisting after experiencing setbacks and wrong turns. This labyrinth metaphor is both optimistic in its acknowledgement that women can succeed and realistic in its reflection of the uncertainty of their success. Yet, women’s successes reflect both their own skills and motivation and the challenges of the situation (Carli and Eagly, 2016).
Even though women may typically face more challenges than men in vying for leader roles, there are signs of change. One social trend I already noted is the partial shift toward androgyny in the leader stereotype (Koenig et al., 2011). Perhaps this trend reflects the increasing complexity of many organizational environments, which follows from accelerated technological growth, increasing workforce diversity, and greater interdependence among organizations. In view of such conditions, many leadership experts have recommended that leaders should display democratic qualities involving less hierarchy and more participatory decision making and delegation of responsibility (e.g., Kanter, 2003; Lipman-Blumen, 2017). Women epitomize these qualities more than men do, with their more democratic and relational leadership styles.
The rise of women into leader roles is gaining some momentum. As people observe more women competently serving as leaders, it will no longer seem strange that a woman is in charge. In fact, given female leaders’ association with contemporary activism, they have come to symbolize modernity and future-oriented leadership (Brown et al., 2011). For example, three women founded the contemporary Black Lives Matter social movement: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi (“Black Lives Matter,” 2020); and two women founded the #MeToo movement: Tarana Burke and Alyssa Milano (“Me Too Movement,” 2020). Also, a group of four progressive Democratic women elected in 2018 to the U.S. House of Representatives, known as “The Squad,” have received enormous media attention: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. Another sign of change is that in private sector organizations with strong diversity values, high-potential women have been favored over men in compensation and promotion (e.g., Leslie et al., 2017). Furthermore, indicating the growing value of women’s communion, analyses of the U.S. labor market found that jobs increasingly require high levels of social skills (Deming, 2017).
Concerning the goals that women pursue as leaders, consider first that women’s sociopolitical attitudes tend to be more compassionate, other-oriented, and egalitarian than those of men (i.e., favoring policies supporting families, education, health care, the poor, etc.), yet more supportive of traditional morality (e.g., Eagly et al., 2004; Huddy and Cassese, 2013; Miah, 2013; Schwartz and Rubel-Lifschitz, 2009). Minority communities show similar trends toward more compassionate and egalitarian attitudes (Eagly et al., 2004; Kinder and Kam, 2010).
These attitudes and values may guide behavior in a direction of female leaders placing more emphasis on the public good. Various findings support such a prediction. Specifically, as members of legislative bodies, women, minorities, and especially women of color, are more likely than their White male colleagues to advocate for compassionate policies that promote the interests of women, minorities, children, families, and the poor and that support public welfare in areas such as health care and education (Dittmar et al., 2018; Griffin, 2014; Karpowitz, and Mendelberg, 2014; Swers, 2013), although these trends are weaker among Republican than Democratic legislators (Osborn, 2014). As for corporate boards of directors, the addition of women has had negligible effects on firm financial performance but positive effects on social and ethical aspects of firm behavior (e.g., corporate social responsibility) and on gender diversity below board level (see review by Kirsch, 2018). In relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, Garikipati and Kambhampati (2020) have shown that cases and deaths have been fewer in nations led by women than men, outcomes that their findings suggest are likely due to women’s more proactive and coordinated policy initiatives.
All in all, women are rising into leadership roles, in politics as in other institutions. Research has shown that, in general, these women are not clones of male leaders. They typically are more participative and democratic than men in their approach to leadership. The goals that they pursue tend to place greater emphasis on the public good, consistent with their more compassionate and egalitarian values. These trends can advantage or disadvantage female leaders, depending on the political and ideological context. Nevertheless, the fundamental fairness that is highly valued in democratic societies as well the competence of women who vie for political office and other leader roles should facilitate women’s increasing participation in leadership.