MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE STEREOTYPES FINALLY CHANGING?

(1)

MEN, WOMEN, AND MANAGERS: ARE STEREOTYPES FINALLY CHANGING?

EMILY E. DUEHR and JOYCE E. BONO University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

As the number of women in management roles increases and organizations place a greater emphasis on diversity, a subsequent change in perceptions of women as leader-like is expected. To test this notion, we examined gender and management stereotypes of male and female managers and students. Results reveal considerable change in male managers’ views of women over the past 30 years, as evidenced by greater congruence between their perceptions of women and successful managers and stronger endorsement of agentic and task-oriented leadership characteristics for women. Stereotypes held by male students changed less, remaining strikingly similar to stereotypes held by male managers 15 years ago. Across samples, there was general agreement in the characteristics of managers but less agreement about the characteristics of women. We also found men somewhat less likely than women to attribute successful manager characteristics to women. Respondents with positive past experiences with female managers tended to rate women higher on management characteristics.

In the United States, the number of women in the managerial and professional ranks has steadily increased. According to Catalyst, a research and advisory organization committed to advancing women in business, women now hold 51% of managerial and professional specialty positions (Welle, 2004). Women also hold 51% of bachelor’s degrees and 45% of all advanced degrees (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Although these numbers are larger today than ever before, the progression of women into executive positions continues to be slow. For example, among theFortune 500 companies, only 16% of corporate officers, 14% of board directors, 5% of top earners, and just over 1% of CEOs are women (Welle, 2004).

Much research has focused on explaining the slow managerial advancement of women (e.g., Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005;

Stroh, Brett, & Reilly, 1992), ruling out reasons such as lesser skills, education, and time out of the workforce. One plausible explanation that has not been ruled out is that women face subtle barriers in the corporate climb.

In a recent survey of 120 CEOs and 705 female executives drawn from the

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Emily E. Duehr, 75 East River Road, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; [email protected].

COPYRIGHT^C2006 BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC.

815

(2)

Fortune 1,000 companies (Wellington, Kropf, & Gerkovich, 2003), 72% of CEOs and 51% of female executives perceived stereotypes about women’s roles and abilities to be an important barrier to their advancement.

Clearly, gender stereotypes are salient in organizations as a potential barrier to advancement; however, the degree to which stereotypes persist in the 21st century is unclear. Thirty years have passed since issues of gender inequality in management and leadership reached the public eye (e.g., Kanter, 1977), and in that time women have become more common in the boardroom. As the gender balance in management changes, parallel changes in hiring practices, mentor availability, and eventually gender role stereotypes should follow (Kanter, 1977).

Over the course of the past several decades, there have also been changes on the management front. Contemporary books and articles on management describe management work in “qualities traditionally defined as feminine” (Fondas, 1997, p. 257), such as helping and developing oth- ers, and building networks of relationships. In the academic literature, a new genre of leadership (i.e., charismatic and transformational leadership;

Bass, 1985, 1998) has dominated recent research (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).

There is also ongoing debate about whether women now hold a leadership advantage (Eagly & Carli, 2003; Vecchio, 2002, 2003).

Given the changes in both women’s work roles and models of leadership effectiveness, the aim of our research is to assess current perceptions of men, women, and successful managers. Specifically, the purpose of our study is to assess management and gender stereotypes today, comparing them with those that existed in the 1970s and 1980s (Brenner, Tomkiewicz,

& Schein, 1989; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Schein, 1973, 1975).

Gender Stereotypes: Time for Change?

Gender stereotypes are categorical beliefs regarding the traits and be- havioral characteristics ascribed to individuals on the basis of their gender.

They serve as expectations about the attributes and behaviors of individual group members (Cleveland, Stockdale, & Murphy, 2000) and are considered one of the direct antecedents of discrimination at work (Dovidio &

Hebl, 2005). Typically, women are stereotyped as more communal and men as more agentic. Communal characteristics are primarily concerned with the welfare of other people, including attributes such as compas- sionate, kind, sentimental, helpful, and generous. Agentic characteristics describe a more assertive, dominant, and confident tendency, including attributes such as aggressive, ambitious, independent, and self-confident.

Agentic characteristics have traditionally been aligned with leadership roles (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002).

(3)

Gender stereotypes have been documented for decades. Although some research suggests that stereotypes are not quick to change, even in the wake of changing social influences (e.g., Lueptow, Garovich-Szabo, & Lueptow, 2001), it is clear that the social environment with respect to women has been changing. The past several decades have included changes in the legal environment (e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1964, affirmative action) and associated changes in the extent to which organizations focus on equal opportunity employment practices, both as a function of legal guidelines and as a movement toward fostering diversity as a business goal (Rynes &

Rosen, 1995). Changes in attitudes toward women have also been documented (Twenge, 1997a). These environmental changes suggest two possible reasons why gender stereotypes may be changing, especially for women in management. The first possibility is that a gradual change in gender stereotypes may be occurring due to changing social roles (e.g., more women at work and in management and executive positions). The second possibility is change due to organizational interventions, such as diversity training aimed at decreasing gender stereotypes and other preju- diced attitudes. Both possibilities are discussed in the next section.

According to social role theory (Eagly, 1987), agentic and communal characteristics are differentially attributed to men and women because un- equal distribution into occupations and families fosters such expectations (Diekman & Eagly, 2000). As the distribution of men and women into social roles shifts, perceptions of the characteristics of men and women (i.e., stereotypes) should also change; however, change cannot be expected to occur quickly (Lueptow et al., 2001). Recently, Diekman and Eagly (2000) found evidence of changing conceptions of women, reporting that stereotypes of women have shifted toward more masculine or agentic characteristics. In a meta-analysis, Twenge (1997b) reported that women’s self-reported masculinity scores were rising over time and proposed that this increase resulted from the changing social climate for women. Con- trary to Twenge (1997b), Lueptow et al.’s (2001) review—which exam- ines gender stereotypes based largely on self-report personality and direct comparisons of men and women—suggested that gender stereotypes have remained stable over time with a possible increase in the perceived femi- ninity of females. Although neither of these streams of research focuses on gender and management, they do suggest that whether or not stereotypes are changing is an unsettled issue.

A decidedly different reason to expect changing gender stereotypes is due to the increased focus on diversity in organizations, including specific interventions (e.g., diversity training) designed to foster this goal. It is now estimated that organizations spend $8 billion annually on diversity training, and in a recent survey of Fortune 1,000 companies, 88%

reported providing diversity training on gender (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004).

(4)

Diversity training can be aimed at increasing awareness and appreciation of differences between individuals or decreasing stereotypes held by organizational members. When focused on gender, the aim is typically to identify stereotypes and promote inclusion, rather than highlighting differences between men and women (Jayne & Dipboye, 2004). Research on schema change shows that once schemas are established, they are very resistant to change, even in the face of disconfirming evidence (Epitropaki

& Martin, 2004; Labianca, Gray, & Brass, 2000). Epitropaki and Martin (2004) stated that “unless specific interventions and conscious efforts by management for schema change happen in an organization, organizational members’ schemas are likely to remain stable” (p. 295). We suggest that diversity training is precisely the type of intervention and conscious effort needed to promote changes in gender stereotypes.

A recent study by Rudman, Ashmore, and Gary (2001) examined the impact of diversity education on stereotypes and prejudices, and found that training can reduce these biases at multiple levels. Not only did diversity education lead to a decrease in directly reported, explicit stereotypes, but such education also reduced implicit stereotypes, which occur on an automatic, unconscious level (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Implicit stereotypes are thought to be more stable and enduring associations because they have been learned through years of environmental influences (Kawakami

& Dovidio, 2001). If such associations can be unlearned through diversity training, and diversity training is common in today’s work organizations, then it is possible that gender stereotypes may be changing as a result of direct interventions. If diversity training is a key factor influencing stereotype change, we would expect to see greater change among those individuals with more time and experience in the workplace, due to their increased participation in such training.

Research Using the Schein Descriptive Index

A crucial consideration when examining gender stereotypes in work organizations is the extent to which these stereotypes affect perceptions of managers. Research within the Schein paradigm focuses on the relationship between gender and management stereotypes, reflecting the extent to which men and women are viewed as leader-like. In 1973, Schein developed the Descriptive Index to assess the extent to which men and women were perceived to have the requisite personal characteristics expected for management positions. Using a broad list of adjectives, Schein found that the characteristics of successful middle managers were much more similar to the characteristics commonly ascribed to men in general and not at all like the characteristics attributed to women in general.

Schein (1975) replicated these results with a sample of female managers,

(5)

demonstrating that it was not only males who held gender stereotypes in the workplace.

In a key extension of the Schein paradigm approximately 15 years after the original research, Heilman et al. (1989) examined the extent to which gender stereotypes persisted in organizations. Heilman et al. (1989) replicated Schein’s (1973) original work and found stereotypical views about the characteristics of men in general, women in general, and successful managers at a level that closely paralleled Schein’s (1973) findings, suggesting little change in the stereotypes of male managers over time.

Heilman also extended Schein’s research by comparing successful managers to male and female managers and to successful male and female managers, finding considerably weaker gender stereotypes when more information was provided about the managerial success of women (e.g., female managers or successful female managers).

Concurrent research with female managers yielded slightly different results. Brenner et al. (1989) replicated the original Schein studies using both male and female management samples. They found no evidence of changing stereotypes among male managers; however, female managers rated both men and women as similar to successful managers. This dispar- ity between male and female respondents was due largely to differences in their view of women, not in their view of successful managers.

Since 1989, researchers have continued to use the Schein paradigm to identify gender stereotypes, but nearly all of this research has used student samples. Although some researchers have argued that college students would be less likely to report gender stereotypes due to a more egalitarian social context (Lueptow et al., 2001), research using the Schein paradigm has repeatedly shown that college students hold strong gender stereotypes, especially the male students (Schein & Mueller, 1992). Similar results have been reported among students in Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and China (Schein, Mueller, & Jacobson, 1989; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy,

& Liu, 1996). This pattern of findings led Schein (2001) to conclude,

“In the United States many people believed that as women moved into management, managerial sex typing would diminish. And it did, among women. But men have continued to see women in ways that are not com- plimentary vis-`a-vis succeeding in positions of authority and influence”

(p. 684).

This discouraging statement on gender and management stereotypes may not apply uniformly to all men. Results derived from student samples may not generalize to employees in work organizations, especially managers, who experience both increased exposure to women leaders and direct interventions such as diversity training. Key replications of the Schein paradigm with managers took place in the late 1980s, at a time when women were fast increasing their presence in organizations

(6)

(Heilman et al., 1989), but since that time the number of women in leadership positions has continued to grow (Welle, 2004). Therefore, after another 15-year period, the time is ripe to examine whether gender stereotypes held by managers have changed. It is not sufficient to rely solely on student samples to address this question. Therefore, we included both managers and students in our research to provide a more thorough portrait of current gender and management stereotypes.

Since the first Schein (1973) study of gender and management stereotypes, there have been many advances in the literature with respect to the conceptualization and measurement of stereotypes, and adjective check- lists, such as the Schein Descriptive Index, have been criticized. Devine and Elliot (1995) distinguished between ratings of stereotypes and ratings of personal beliefs. According to their distinction, the Schein Index focuses on personal beliefs, which may or may not be congruent with either knowledge or endorsement of stereotypes (see Kunda & Spencer, 2003). However, by aggregating the personal beliefs of male and female managers and students, as we do in this research, we can examine the gender and management stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g., male managers).

Recent stereotype research has also demonstrated differences between explicit and implicit stereotypes (e.g., Rudman et al., 2001; Ziegert &

Hanges, 2005). Implicit stereotypes are the “introspectively unidentified traces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members of a social category” (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995, p. 15). Additional research has focused on the difference between descriptive (i.e., consensual expectations about what men and women actually do) and prescriptive (i.e., consensual expectations about what men and women should do) stereotypes (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins, 2004). We recognize both the complexity of stereotypes and their measurement and the possible role that implicit and prescriptive stereotypes may play in the advancement of women in management. However, as the purpose of our study was to compare views of men, women, and managers over time, it was necessary for us to use an explicit measure, which due to its reliance on adjective descriptors of men, women, and managers, assesses descriptive gender stereotypes.

A second concern raised by Devine and Elliot (1995) was the use of outdated adjectives, which may provide a limited description of men, women, and managers. Given the changing leadership paradigms over the past 30 years, we felt it was crucial to add adjectives reflecting a broader range of leadership styles. In particular, adjectives describing relationship-oriented and transformational leadership were absent from the original Descrip- tive Index, whereas task-oriented leadership characteristics were well- represented. Task-oriented leadership behaviors emphasize group output;

(7)

such as establishing objectives and goals, structuring tasks, and evaluat- ing work quality. In contrast, relationship-oriented behaviors emphasize supportive personal relationships, a willingness to develop employees and demonstrations of respect and warmth (Bales, 1954; Bowers & Seashore, 1966; House & Aditya, 1997). Although task and relationship-oriented leadership have a long history in the leadership research, recent research has focused more on transformational leadership behaviors (Judge & Pic- colo, 2004). Transformational leaders inspire and motivate followers with optimism and commitment to a compelling vision. They link work goals to worker values, challenge established practices, and attend to the individual growth needs of followers (Bass, 1985, 1998). Given that recent meta-analyses have highlighted the positive effects of both relationship¹ (Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004) and transformational (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) leadership behaviors on employee attitudes and motivation, group performance, and leader effectiveness, we added adjectives describing these behaviors to the index.

Most past research using the Schein Index examined each of the 92 adjectives individually. In order to make comparisons over time, we deemed it important to use the original adjectives, but we also combined the adjectives to form several scales. In order to assess broad gender stereotypes, agentic and communal scales were formed. In addition, we combined adjectives to form scales for task-oriented leadership, relationship-oriented leadership, and transformational leadership to better link this research to current models of effective leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Judge et al., 2004).

Individual Differences in Beliefs About Men, Women, and Managers Although the primary purpose of our research is to examine stereotypes held by groups of individuals (e.g., male managers, female students), very little is known about the characteristics of individuals who predict their beliefs about men, women, and managers. Most existing research using the Schein Descriptive Index has usedeither student or managerial samples, preventing direct comparison among these groups. Moreover, when comparing the stereotypes of managers and students, it is not clear whether differences in stereotypes between these groups are due to the effects of age, years of work experience, experience with female managers, or hold- ing a managerial role. Therefore, an additional aim of our research is to

1The Judge et al. (2004) meta-analysis uses the label consideration instead of relationship-oriented leadership. These categories refer to comparable and concurrent programs of research. The labels have frequently been used interchangeably in research (e.g., Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Sczesny et al., 2004).

(8)

tease apart the source of differences between individuals in their beliefs about men, women, and managers by examining personal characteristics (i.e., age, gender, education) and organizational experiences (i.e., having a female supervisor, being satisfied with a female supervisor).

Summary of Research Questions

Given the continued movement of women into management positions and changes in dominant leadership paradigms over the past several decades, the time is ripe to examine whether anything has changed with respect to management and gender stereotypes. To that end, we address five specific research questions.

(1) Research Question 1. Have management and gender stereotypes held by male and female managers changed relative to 15 and 30 years ago?

(2) Research Question 2. Have management and gender stereotypes held by male and female students changed, and how do they compare to the stereotypes of male and female managers?

(3) Research Question 3. If gender stereotypes have changed, what is driving that change? Have views of managers changed, have views of men and women changed, or have both changed?

(4) Research Question 4. Do the broad gender stereotypic (agentic, com- munal) and leadership-specific (task-oriented, relationship-oriented, transformational) characteristics attributed to men, women, and managers differ by sample?

(5) Research Question 5. Do individual differences in education, age, management experience, and experiences with female supervisors predict beliefs about men, women, and managers?

Method Participants and Procedures

We used four distinct samples in this research: male managers, female managers, male students, and female students. Managers (n= 620) who participated in this research were drawn from a variety of public and private sector organizations and came from a variety of job types (e.g., account- ing, human resources, law enforcement, public works, etc.). All managers were enrolled in voluntary leadership development programs. Data were also collected from undergraduate students (n= 688) at a large public university. Students were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses and received credit for their participation. They represented a broad array of

(9)

TABLE 1

Sample Characteristics for This Study

Sample N Sample characteristics Summary statistics

Male managers 333 Age M= 48 years, SD = 8.8

Education 81% BA or higher

# Direct reports x= 9, SD = 13 Race

Caucasian 85.2%

African American/Black 3.1%

Hispanic 1.7%

Asian 1.7%

Female managers 287 Age M= 46 years, SD = 9.2

Education 78% BA or higher

# Direct reports x= 9, SD = 10 Race

Caucasian 88.7%

Hispanic 0%

Asian 1.3%

Male students 221 Age M= 21 years, SD = 3.8

Managerial experience 25% had been managers Race

Caucasian 79.6%

Hispanic 1.4%

Asian 9.5%

Female students 467 Age M= 20 years, SD = 3.6

Managerial experience 15% had been managers Race

Caucasian 78.6%

Hispanic 1.3%

Asian 13.3%

academic majors, including economics, journalism, business, and psychology. Demographic information regarding participants’ age, race, education, and number of direct reports (for managers) is provided in Table 1.

The age of the managers in our samples is comparable to Schein (1973, 1975) and Heilman et al. (1989).

Surveys were administered to managers as an optional component of a survey used in leadership development programs. Surveys were distributed during orientation and completed prior to the start of any formal program activity. The research portion of the survey was clearly identified as distinct from the leadership assessment, which was for developmental purposes only and not provided to the managers’ organization. Therefore,

(10)

managers were encouraged to provide honest responses throughout the survey as the results would be used for research purposes only. The research portion of the survey was confidential and anonymous and was returned in postage-paid envelopes to the authors. Among the managers who completed a leadership development survey, 82% also completed a research survey. Surveys were distributed to student samples in several small group sessions. Student surveys were anonymous.

There were seven versions of our survey, each one representing a different target condition. The seven conditions were (a) successful middle managers, (b) women in general, (c) men in general, (d) women managers, (e) men managers, (f) successful women managers, and (g) successful men managers. The first condition (successful middle managers) is the control condition and Conditions 2 through 7 are gendered conditions that range in level of specificity (e.g., from women in general, to women managers, to successful women managers). Participants were randomly assigned to one of seven conditions. All seven surveys included the same list of descriptive adjectives and instructions but differed with respect to the target group. For example, some respondents were asked to report the extent to which each adjective was reflective of “women in general,” whereas oth- ers were asked to report the extent to which each adjective was reflective of “successful men managers.” Therefore, each participant responded to only one target condition. The number of participants responding to each target condition varies by sample and is reported in Table 2.

Measures

Gender stereotypes. A revised version of the Descriptive Index (Schein, 1973), including the original 92 items plus 26 additional new items (described below), was used to measure gender stereotypes and characteristics of successful middle managers. Despite widespread use of the Descriptive Index, there is very little information published regarding its psychometric properties. Based on the suggestion of anonymous re- viewers, we collected somepost hoc data to address this concern. Among a student sample (n= 30), we found the 2-week test–retest reliability to be .90, suggesting relatively stable ratings for a given target condition. We also examined whether ratings would differ if the control condition was labeled “successful manager” rather than “successful middle manager.”

Among a student sample (n= 97), we found these ratings to be highly correlated (r= .98), indicating similar perceptions of the characteristics of managers (more generally) and middle managers.

We added 26 new items to the Descriptive Index to address concerns about outdated adjectives (Devine & Elliot, 1995) and to better represent current styles of leadership. We added 13 new adjectives to describe

(11)

TABLE 2

Sample Breakdown by Condition of the Descriptive Index

Sample Condition N

Male managers 1. Successful middle managers 57

2. Women in general 50

3. Men in general 40

4. Women managers 39

5. Men managers 51

6. Successful women managers 38

7. Successful men managers 58

Female managers 1. Successful middle managers 36

5. Men managers 48

Male students 1. Successful middle managers 32

5. Men managers 33

Female students 1. Successful middle managers 65

5. Men managers 58

transformational leaders. The new items were based on the most widely used measure of transformational leadership, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1995). Each author separately reviewed the MLQ and developed a list of adjectives that were reflective of transformational leadership, resulting in 13 items to be added to the inventory (see Appendix A). Additional items were added to reflect management characteristics that are relationship oriented, as such adjectives were largely unrepresented among the original 92 items of the Descrip- tive Index. Participants responded to all 118 items using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1not characteristic to 5 characteristic. Survey instructions were modeled after Schein (1975) and asked participants to rate each adjective according to what they think the target group is like.

(12)

TABLE 3

Intercorrelations Among Gender and Leadership Scales in This Study

Scale 1 2 3 4 5

1. Agentic .78

2. Communal .33^∗∗ .73

3. Task .69^∗∗ −.06^∗ .80

4. Relationship .03 .68^∗∗ .39^∗∗ .87

5. Transformational .16^∗∗ .60^∗∗ .50^∗∗ .89^∗∗ .94

Note. Combined sample= 1,363. Scale alphas are presented on the diagonal.

∗p< .05.^∗∗p< .01.

We also used the original and new Descriptive Index adjectives to form scales. Scales were chosen a priori and a judgmental sort was undertaken by the authors. This method was preferable to an empirical sort (i.e., factor analysis) because specific scales were selected based on their theoretical relevance to gender and management stereotypes (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Eagly

& Karau, 2002). The selection of adjectives to form each scale was guided by previous research. More specifically, with respect to broad gender stereotypes, we formed agentic and communal scales using adjectives or direct synonyms described by Eagly and Karau (2002). Furthermore, an effort was made to include agentic and communal adjectives with both positive and negative connotations, as in Diekman and Eagly (2000). This process identified 14 adjectives from Schein’s original 92 to reflect agentic and communal characteristics. With respect to leadership-specific scales, we formed task and relationship-oriented scales based on recent research by Sczesny (2003) and Sczesny, Bosak, Neff, and Schyns (2004), who classified attributes into highly reliable task and person-oriented scales.

Whenever possible, we matched exact adjectives or synonyms from the Descriptive Index to form these scales; however, several new adjectives were included in the relationship-oriented leadership scale as these items were underrepresented among the original items of the Descriptive Index.

We used the 13 new transformational leadership items to form a transformational leadership scale.

All gender and leadership scales and associated items are listed in Ap- pendix A. Scale alphas and intercorrelations are presented in Table 3. The relatively high intercorrelations reported between some scales were not surprising. Notably, the correlation between the agentic and task-oriented scales (r = .69) is in line with the stereotypic notion of task-oriented leadership as more masculine, and the correlation between the communal and relationship-oriented scales (r= .68) reflects the more feminine associations with this style of leadership (Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Eagly

& Johnson, 1990). A high correlation between relationship-oriented and

(13)

transformational leadership was also anticipated, although the association between our transformational and relationship-oriented scales (r= .89) is somewhat higher than previous meta-analytic estimates of this relationship (Miliffe, Piccolo, & Judge, 2005). Given the strong, positive correlations between transformational and relationship-oriented leadership behaviors, Judge et al. (2004) called for research aimed at assessing the extent to which they represent distinct types of leadership behavior, but to date little empirical work has fully addressed this issue (see Seltzer & Bass, 1990 for an exception). Therefore, consistent with existing leadership literature, we treat relationship-oriented and transformational leadership behaviors as distinct constructs.

Individual differences. To address our goal of understanding better the individual differences in characteristics that predict individuals’ beliefs about men, women, and managers, we asked a limited number of back- ground items at the end of the survey. Participants were asked to report their age, gender, and level of education on a 5-point scale corresponding to:high school, 1= associate’s degree 2 = BA/BS 3 = MA/MS 4 = or PhD 5=. Managers were also asked to indicate the number of persons who reported directly to them. Students were asked if they had ever been a manager. A small portion (15%) of the students reported having been a manager for an average of 1.9 years. Due to the large discrepancy in experience and age between students and the manager sample, we retained students with management experience in the student sample. In addition to these items, we assessed participants’ experiences with female supervisors, via two questions: “Have you ever had a female supervisor (yes or no)?” and “If yes, on average how positively would you rate the experience (from 1= poor to 5= excellent)?” Participants were instructed to provide an average if they have had multiple female supervisors.

Results

In reviewing our results, it is important to keep in mind that we have four samples and seven conditions. Thus, in some cases we will be presenting results of 28 different comparisons for a single research question. Table 2, which describes the four samples and seven conditions in our study, may be a helpful guide in following our results.

Original Items of the Descriptive Index

To determine the degree of correspondence between ratings of successful middle managers and men and women, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used. ICCs were preferable to Pearson’s correlations for these analyses because ICCs consider both the relative correspondence and the absolute agreement between ratings. As in past research, ICCs

(14)

were computed from randomized-groups analyses of variance where the groups, or classes, were the original 92 adjectives. The scores within each class were the mean item ratings for each adjective, provided separately for each target condition and sample. ICCs were computed between the control condition (successful middle managers) and each of the gendered conditions, which are treated as independent samples.²This process was repeated separately for each of the four samples used in this study. The resulting ICCs report the similarity of participants’ ratings of successful middle managers to each of the six gendered conditions. A high correlation reflects similar ratings for a particular set of comparison conditions (e.g., successful middle managers and women managers). The size of the correlation between any two conditions reflects the degree to which the comparison group (e.g., women in general or successful male managers) is perceived to have characteristics similar to those of successful middle managers. If the difference in the correlations between two sets of conditions (e.g., successful managers and men in general as compared to successful managers and women in general) exceeds .29, the difference is statistically significant (p< .05).³

Male and female managers. In Table 4, we present correlations for our samples, along with correlations from past research using management samples for comparison. The row label indicates which of the gendered conditions is being compared to successful middle managers (i.e., Row 1 compares women in general and successful middle managers) and the column label indicates which sample the data is drawn from. Most of the correlations were significant, indicating more than a chance level of similarity between the six gendered conditions and successful managers;

however, the magnitude of these relationships varies widely by condition and sample.

The most notable change in results over time is in the comparison between perceptions of successful middle managers and women in general.

2The current use of ICCs as a measure of correspondence is comparable to a two-way random effects model/absolute agreement in reliability analyses where two raters rated 92 objects. In our use of the ICCs, the raters are analogous to the control and gendered conditions while the objects are adjectives. We thank an anonymous reviewer for providing this illustration to aid in understanding our analyses.

3In our analyses using the Descriptive Index, the sample size is the number of adjectives (92), not the number of respondents in each condition. Therefore, if the difference in the correlations between two sets of conditions exceeds .29, the difference between these correlations reaches statistical significance (p< .05). We note that tests of statistical significance are heavily influenced by sample size, and correlations should only be compared if variances are equal across samples (Cudeck, 1989). Because we do not have variability data for the Heilman et al. (1989) data and variances in our data vary somewhat by sample and target condition, the .29 difference marking significance (p< .05) between correlations should be used with some caution.

(15)

TABLE4 IntraclassCorrelationCoefficientsAcrossVariousSamplesand ConditionsfortheOriginal92AdjectivesoftheScheinDescriptiveIndex Sample BrennerHeilmanBrennerScheinSchein Scheinetal.etal.Scheinetal.etal.etal. (1973)(1989)(1989)(1975)(1989)(1989)(1989) GroupsbeingmalemalemaleMalefemalefemaleFemalemaleMalefemaleFemale comparedmanagersmanagersmanagersmanagersmanagersmanagersmanagersstudentsstudentsstudentsstudents Womenand managers.06−.01−.24.63∗∗.30∗.52∗.70∗∗.11.10.43∗.35∗∗ Menandmanagers.62∗.72∗.54∗∗.61∗∗.54∗.59∗.49∗∗.70∗.40∗∗.51∗.45∗∗ Womenmanagers andmanagers––.58∗∗.81∗∗––.96∗∗–.69∗∗–.91∗∗ Menmanagersand managers––.86∗∗.74∗∗––.61∗∗–.68∗∗–.78∗∗ Successfulwomen managersand managers

––.93∗∗.97∗∗––.98∗∗–.93∗∗–.98∗∗ Successfulmen managersand managers ––.98∗∗.97∗∗––.95∗∗–.95∗∗–.95∗∗ Note.Datafromthisstudyarepresentedinbold,indataColumns4,7,9,and11. ∗p<.01.∗∗p<.001.

(16)

Examination of the data in the row labeled “women and managers” reveals a striking change over time in the extent to which male managers see women in general as similar to successful managers. For male managers, there was no significant correlation between ratings of successful middle managers and women in general in 1973 (ICC= .06, ns) and small negative correlations in 1989 (ICCs= −.01 and −.24, both ns). In contrast, there was a large, positive, and significant correlation found in our data (ICC= .63,p< .01). Results in Table 4 also reveal a change in the extent to which female managers’ perceptions of women in general are similar to their perceptions of successful middle managers (ICC= .30, p < .01 in 1973, ICC= .52, p < .01 in 1989, and ICC = .70, p < .001 in 2003). Although the change for female managers was less dramatic than that of male managers and may have begun earlier, change over the 30-year period was steady, sizable, and significant.

A comparison of the correlations between successful middle managers and women in general with the correlations between successful middle managers and men in general suggests that the male managers who participated in our study see men and women as both possessing many of the traits of successful middle managers (ICC= .63, p < .001 for women in general and ICC= .61, p < .001 for men in general). This finding rep- resents a dramatic change in the perceptions of male managers over the past 30 years. Results for female manager respondents in our study are similar to those of men in that they tend to view both men and women as possessing many of the traits of successful managers (ICC= .70, p <

.001 between women and managers and ICC= .49, p < .001 for men and managers).

Our next step was to compare ratings of successful middle managers to the men and women manager conditions. We found that both male and female manager respondents described target women managers and target men managers as similar to successful middle managers, with the women manager condition being rated slightly more similar to successful managers than the men manager condition. Both the successful men and women manager target conditions were described as highly similar (ICCs≥ .95, p < .001) to the successful manager condition.

Results in Table 4, addressing our first research question, suggest that gender stereotypes have changed compared to 15 and 30 years ago. Male and female managers now view men and women as similar to successful managers. Change was most dramatic among male managers.

Male and female students. Results in Table 4 also include ICCs be- tween successful managers and the six gendered conditions for our student samples along with correlations from Schein et al.’s (1989) student samples for comparison. In contrast to the changes we found in our manager samples, our results suggest that less change has occurred in students’

(17)

gender stereotypes since 1989. Specifically, there was no correlation between male students’ views of successful managers and women in general (ICC= .10, ns), similar to findings in 1989 (ICC = .11, ns). Some change was apparent, however, in male students’ views of successful managers and men in general. Although male students still see successful managers and men in general as similar (ICC= .40, p < .01), this value is significantly lower than findings in 1989 (ICC= .70, ns). Among female students, almost no change was evident. As in 1989, we found a significant correlation between female students’ views of successful managers and women in general (ICC = .35, p < .01 and ICC = .43, p < .01, respectively, in our sample and the Schein et al. [1989] sample).

When students responded to the more specific target conditions of men and women managers, there were no significant differences between male and female students. There was a slight trend for female students to view women managers as more similar to successful managers than male students did (ICC= .91, p < .01 and ICC = .69, p < .01 for female and male students, respectively); however, this difference did not reach significance.

With respect to our second research question, there appear to be small changes in the gender stereotypes of male students and no meaningful changes among female students in the past 15 years. Specifically, male students still exhibit some of the gender stereotypes found in past research (viewing men and managers as more similar than women and managers);

however, the strength of the association between men and managers may have lessened over time.

Assessing Change

Given the evidence in our data that stereotypes may be changing—

especially for male managers—it is important to ask: What has changed?

Have managers’ views of men, women, successful managers, or all three changed in the past 30 years? To answer our third research question, we obtained mean adjective ratings for each of the seven conditions from Heilman et al. (1989). We then correlated ratings from Heilman et al.’s data with the data we collected for this study.

Examination of the first column in Table 5 (intraclass correlations between male managers in 1989 and male managers in this sample) reveals strong (ICC= .91, p < .001) agreement between male managers’

perceptions of successful middle managers in 1989 and 2003. Further- more, there is little change in male managers’ views over the 15 years relative to the characteristics of men (ICC= .86 for men in general, .92 for men managers, and .95 for successful men managers). Rather, it appears that changes in male managers’ stereotypes over time are concentrated

(18)

TABLE 5

Intraclass Correlation Coefficients Across Samples for Ratings Within Condition on the Original 92 Adjectives of the Schein Descriptive Index

Heilman et al. (1989) male managers correlated with current sample of:

Male Female Male Female

Condition managers managers students students

Successful middle managers

.91 .92 .89 .92

Women in general .53 .43 .88 .74

Men in general .86 .89 .88 .86

Women managers .72 .60 .72 .72

Men managers .92 .88 .87 .87

Successful women managers

.87 .85 .91 .90

Successful men managers

.95 .96 .93 .94

Note. All values are significant at p< .01.

on their views of women. Although there is a significant correlation (ICC = .53, p < .001) between our male managers’ views of women and the views of male managers in 1989, this correlation is significantly smaller than the correlations across time for successful managers (ICC= .91) and men in general (ICC= .86). The smallest correlation—between male managers’ views in 1989 and male managers’ views in this study—is in their perceptions of the attributes of women in general (and to a lesser extent their views of women managers), suggesting that the changes we reported in Table 4 are due to changes in the way male managers char- acterize women. Because Column 1 compares the responses of similar samples of male managers in 1989 and 2004, results can be interpreted as differences between the two time periods in the stereotypes of male managers.

Table 5 also presents the correlations between all current samples’

characterizations of women and those of 1989 male managers (Row 2).

Results reveal that male students’ views of women in general in our sample are strikingly similar to those of male managers in 1989 (ICC = .88, p< .001), indicating that male students in our sample tended to gender stereotype women in a way that makes them incompatible with the role of a successful manager. Considered as a whole, results in Table 5 suggest that views of successful managers (men, women, or gender neutral) are consistent across time and samples; however, views of women are less stable.

Next, we compare scores on the gender and leadership scales across samples and conditions, addressing Research Question 4. In Table 6, we

(19)

TABLE 6

Mean Ratings on Gender and Leadership Scales by Sample and Condition Heilman et al.

(1989) male Male Female Male Female

Condition and scales managers managers managers students students Successful middle managers

Agentic 4.10 3.70a 3.64a 3.60a 3.82a

Communal 2.96 3.39a 3.29a 3.28a 3.23a

Task-oriented 4.18 4.18a 4.16a 3.95a 4.07a

Relationship-oriented – 4.29a 4.12a,b 3.91b 3.92b

Transformational – 4.32a 4.22_a,b 4.02_a,b 4.03b

Women in general

Agentic 2.58 3.06a 3.14a 2.66b 2.98a

Communal 3.63 3.62a 3.71a 3.71a 3.77a

Task-oriented 2.75 3.38a,b 3.64a 2.89c 3.26b

Relationship-oriented – 3.85a,b 4.04a 3.55b 3.86a

Transformational – 3.69a,b 3.94a 3.45b 3.80a

Men in general

Agentic 3.76 3.74a 3.74a 3.76a 3.81a

Communal 2.76 2.73a 2.70a 2.68a 2.81a

Relationship-oriented – 3.17a 2.91a 3.09a 3.06a

Transformational – 3.35a 3.17a 3.21a 3.31a

Women managers

Agentic 3.52 3.51_a,b 3.74a 3.28b 3.71a

Communal 2.99 3.46a 3.22a 3.40a 3.43a

Task-oriented 3.54 3.69_a,b 4.04c 3.42a 3.84_b,c

Transformational – 3.83_a,b 4.05a 3.65b 3.94_a,b

Men managers

Agentic 3.95 3.87a 3.90a 3.90a 3.90a

Communal 2.85 2.77a 2.55a 2.82a 2.63a

Task-oriented 3.84 3.86_a,b 3.72a 3.93_a,b 4.00b

Relationship-oriented – 3.43a 3.03b 3.23_a,b 3.19_a,b

Transformational – 3.62a 3.29b 3.46_a,b 3.30b

Successful women managers

Agentic 4.09 3.88a 3.91a 3.90a 4.01a

Communal 3.01 3.23a 3.32a 3.17a 3.29a

Transformational – 4.12_a,b 4.38a 4.10_a,b 4.08b

Successful men managers

Agentic 4.23 3.98a 3.91a 3.81a 4.08a

Communal 3.09 3.15_a,b 2.85c 3.28a 2.97_a,b,c

Relationship-oriented – 4.15a 3.81b 4.03_a,b 3.71b

Transformational – 4.29a 3.98_a,b 4.14_a,b 3.86b

Note. ANOVAs were conducted on the present data only. Means in the same row that do not share subscripts differ atp< .05 in the Bonferroni post hoc comparison.

(20)

present scale means for each of the five scales (agentic, communal, task- oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational) for each of the seven conditions. These data are presented for our four samples as well as for the Heilman et al. (1989) male managers; however, because the relationship- oriented and transformational scales were computed from new items, these scales could not be computed from the Heilman et al. data. In addition, we cannot compute effect sizes (d) or conduct tests of significance for comparisons involving the Heilman et al. data because we have only mean levels for target condition and scale. It is highly informative, however, to examine the mean scale ratings across samples for changing trends. In particular, change is evident in the scale ratings for the control condition of successful middle managers. Relative to 1989 male managers, it appears that current managers view successful managers as less agentic and more communal. This movement toward greater balance in the stereotypically male (agentic) and female (communal) characteristics of successful middle managers is in line with arguments that modern leadership paradigms are moving toward the feminine (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2003; Fondas, 1997).

Relative to the 1989 male managers, current samples also tend to rate women in general higher on agentic characteristics.

A series of ANOVAs revealed the gender and leadership scales on which our four samples vary significantly in their mean ratings (see Table 6). ANOVAs were conducted within each target condition to identify where samples vary in their ratings. When the overallF statistic was significant for any scale, Bonferroni post hoc comparisons⁴ were used to identify which samples were significantly different. Throughout Table 6, means in the same row that do not share subscripts were significantly different (p < .05). These findings are consistent with our earlier con- clusion that male managers’ views appear to be changing, whereas male students’ views have not. For example, when examining scale ratings for the condition of women in general, there are no significant differences among male and female managers for any of the five scales. In contrast, male students rated women significantly lower on agentic characteristics and task-oriented leadership relative to all other samples. As an important comparison point, ANOVAs for the condition of men in general revealed no significant differences for any scale ratings. These results provide further support for the notion that the variation in stereotypes across samples stems from differing views of women.

Results presented in Table 6 also suggest a same-sex bias among female respondents for the leadership scales. For example, when comparing the managerial samples, female managers rated women managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership, also rating men

4Bonferronipost hoc comparisons were used to adjust the family-wise error rate to be at or below the value initially set (p< .05) for all comparisons.

(21)

managers significantly lower on relationship-oriented and transformational leadership. Similarly, among student samples, female students rated women managers significantly higher on task-oriented leadership. This pattern suggests that female respondents attribute more leadership behaviors to women relative to male respondents. When comparing mean scale ratingsbetween target conditions, female respondents often rate women higher on leadership scales as compared to analogous ratings of men (e.g., female managers rated women managers higher than men managers on task-oriented, relationship-oriented, and transformational leadership).

In summary, results in Table 6 reveal several instances in which male students’ ratings diverge from ratings made by other samples, particularly for the condition of women in general. Results also suggest a same-sex bias among female respondents for the leadership scales.

Individual Differences

In our results and in prior research (e.g., Brenner et al., 1989; Dodge, Gilroy, & Fenzel, 1995; Schein et al., 1989), there has been clear evidence that managers and students, and men and women, hold different gender stereotypes, diverging most in the attributes they assign to women.

Therefore, the purpose of our final analysis, addressing Research Ques- tion 5, was to examine the role of individual differences in predicting the beliefs that our respondents hold about men, women, and managers. The dependent variable for this analysis is a composite of the top 12 characteristics of successful managers. We combined the data across samples in the successful manager condition to identify the 12 items rated as most descriptive of successful middle managers. These items were combined to form a composite of successful manager characteristics (alpha= .90;

see Appendix B).

Zero-order correlations are reported in Table 7. Due to the large sample (N = 1,271), many of the correlations reach statistical significance;

however, some correlations are noteworthy, including the relationship between age and education and having a female supervisor (r = −.50, p < .01 for age and r = −.25, p < .01 for education). Our next step was to regress the successful manager characteristics composite on the demographic and experiential variables. Because our earlier results suggest that differences between samples were most frequent in the female conditions, these conditions were the primary focus of our regression analyses.R²values reported in Table 8 indicate that individual differences among respondents explain significant variance in two of the female conditions (21% for women in general, 25% for women managers) but not for the analogous male conditions (3% for men in general, 6% for men managers). Across these two female conditions, results indicate that men are generally less likely than women to view women as having successful

(22)

TABLE 7

Intercorrelations Among Individual Differences Characteristics and the Successful Manager Composite

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Gender –

Age .23 –

Education .19 .57 –

Manager status .23 .75 .55 –

Female supervisor −.15 −.50 −.25 −.42 –

Satisfaction with female supervisor −.01 .04 .05 .06 −.10 – Successful manager composite −.05 .08 .03 .05 −.06 .10 –

Notes. Correlations greater than .06 are significant at p< .05 and correlations greater than .08 are significant atp< .01. Combined sample = 1,271. Gender is coded (1 = female, 2= male), manager is dummy coded (0 = no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is coded (0= no, 1 = yes).

TABLE 8

Regression Analyses Predicting Successful Manager Composite

Target condition

Successful Successful

Men in Men men Women in Women women

general managers managers general managers managers Beta

Gender −.02 .04 .07 −.19^∗ −.25^∗∗ −.11

Age .02 −.02 .17 .14 .24 .13

Education −.14 −.19 −.11 −.02 .07 .06

Manager status .10 −.10 −.10 −.10 −.02 −.20

Female supervisor −.10 −.12 −.02 −.25^∗∗ .09 −.06

Satisfaction with female supervisor

.00 −.03 .00 .28^∗∗ .36^∗∗ .12

R² .03 .06 .02 .21^∗∗ .25^∗∗ .04

Notes. Combined sample= 1,271. Gender is coded (1 = female, 2 = male), manager is dummy coded (0= no, 1 = yes), and female supervisor is coded (0 = no, 1 = yes).

∗p≤ .05.^∗∗p≤ .01.

manager characteristics. We also found that individuals who were satisfied with female supervisors in the past were significantly more likely to view women as having successful manager characteristics. Lastly, it is interest- ing to note that having a female supervisor was significantly and negatively linked to the successful manager composite only for the women in general condition. Once we controlled for the quality of the relationship with the female supervisor (and all other individual differences variables), those who had a female supervisor were less likely to see women in general as having successful manager characteristics.