Through the Labyrinth: How Women Become Leaders

1. Through the Labyrinth:How Women Become Leaders Linda Carli, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Wellesley College Big Sky Leadership Initiative Cultures of Leadership Conference May 5, 2010

2. Is there still a glass ceiling? A single obstacle At the pinnacle of women’s careers The same for all women Completely impermeable But there are multiple obstacles Some occur early in careers Paths to leadership vary And some women have advanced (Wall Street Journal, 1986)

3. More women are well-educated Percentage of degrees awarded to women in the United States, 1900-2008(bls.gov)

4. More women have jobs Labor force participation of men and women in the United States, 1940-2009 (bls.gov)

5. More women are in management Percentage of managers who are women and men in the United States—1983-2009(bls.gov)

6. Women are earning more Median weekly earnings of full-time & salaried employees in the United States, in 2008 dollars, 1979-2008(bls.gov)

7. But equality has not been achieved • Income gap remains • Slower advancement for women • Few women at the top of biggest corporations

8. Organizational leadership in USA, 2009(bls.gov; Catalyst, 2009, 2010; Fortune, 2010)

9. Leadership (Harvard Business Review, 2007)

10. What are the obstacles that form the labyrinth? Do women lack the desire for leadership or the traits of a good leader? • No • Women and men in similar positions do not differ in their desire for advancement and leadership(Konrad et. al., 2000) • Women and men do not differ in the personality traits associated with effective leadership (Halpern, 2001; Schmitt, et. al. 2008) • Extraversion(Judge, et. al., 2002) • Intelligence(Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004)

11. What about family responsibilities? Women take more career breaks for family and more often work part-time(Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006;)

12. What about family responsibilities? Women take more career breaks for family and more often work part-time(Bianchi, Robinson, & Milkie, 2006)

13. What about family responsibilities? Women take more career breaks for family and more often work part-time(Galinsky et al., 2003)

14. Organizational obstacles • Lack of social capital – less access to powerful networks and mentors(e.g., Forret & Dougherty, 2004; McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001) • Fewer offers of appropriatelychallengingassignments – line management, travel, and relocations(e.g., Catalyst, 2004; Lyness & Thompson, 2000) • Glass cliff(e.g., Haslam & Ryan, 2008; Ryan & Haslam, 2007)

15. One major obstacle: Gender stereotypes Men seen as more agentic (for example, competent, leader-like, assertive, in charge, strong, directive) Women seen as more communal (for example, warm, supportive, helpful, sympathetic, kind) And leaders? Think-manager think-male studies: Studies comparing the traits of leaders with the traits of men and women (e.g., Schein, 1973) Studies comparing the agentic vs communal traits of leaders (e.g., Powell & Butterfield, 1989) And what are leaders and managers seen as? Agentic

16. Association of leadership with stereotypical traits of men and women(Koenig et al, 2010)

17. Doubts about women’s agency and competence • To be considered exceptional, women must exhibit higher levels of performance than men do(e.g., Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Foschi, 2000) • Real expertise is less likely to be recognized in women than in men (e.g., Propp, 1995; Thomas-Hunt & Phillips, 2004)

18. And what about the stereotype that women are communal? Women not only are thought to be communal, they have to be

19. The demand for communal behavior • Women are penalized more than men for being agentic • Disagreeing (e.g., Carli, 2006) • Negotiating(e.g., Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007; Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999) • Self-promoting (e.g., Carli, 2006; Wosinska et al., 1996) • Command-and-control leadership (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). • Women who succeed in masculine domains are thought to lack communion & are disliked(e.g., Heilman, et. Al., 2004; Yoder & Schleicher, 1996) • Men receive benefits (gaining approval or promotion) for being helpful but women do not(e.g., Allen,2006; Heilman & Chen, 2005)

20. A double bind for women leaders • To be a good leader, women must overcome doubts about their agency by performing exceptionally well and being highly agentic. • But very competent and agentic women may be seen as lacking communion and not well liked. • To be a good woman, women must be communal by being warm, helpful, and supportive. • But nice communal women may be seen as lacking agency and competence, and considered weak ineffective leaders.

21. In the chat rooms around Silicon Valley, from the time I arrived and until long after I left HP, I was routinely referred to as a ‘bimbo,’ or a ‘bitch’—too soft or too hard, and presumptuous, besides. Carly Fiorina, 2006 former CEO Hewlett-Packard In Tough Choices

22. The double-bind and stereotypes lead to discrimination • Meta-analysis of résumé experiments(Davison & Burke, 2000)

23. Other evidence of discrimination • Studies assess whether the gender gaps in income and promotion disappear when controlling for human capital variables (e.g., Blau & Kahn, 2006; Smith, 2002) • Years of employment • Breaks in employment • Part-time or full time employment • Education • Overtime hours • Gender gaps remain

24. What can women do to overcome some of the obstacles that form the labyrinth? • Build social capital • Networking, mentors • Blend agency & communion • Lead with a mix of masculine & feminine qualities • What type of leadership might incorporate agency and communion?

25. Transformational Leadership • Idealized Influence (Attributes) • Motivating respect and pride from association with the leader • Idealized Influence (Behavior) • Communicating values, purpose, and importance of organization’s mission • Inspirational Motivation • Displaying optimism and excitement about goals and future states • Intellectual Stimulation • Examining new perspectives for solving problems and completing tasks • Individualized Consideration • Focusing on development and mentoring of followers and attending to their individual needs

26. Transformational leadership is often contrasted with Transactional and Laissez-faire Leadership Transactional Leadership • Contingent Reward • Rewarding followers for satisfactory performance • Active Management-by-Exception • Attending to followers’ mistakes and failures • Passive Management-by-Exception • Waiting until problems become severe before attending to them Laissez-Faire Leadership • Is absent and uninvolved during critical junctures

27. Which styles are effective?(Judge & Piccolo, 2004) Transformational • Idealized Influence (Attributes) • Idealized Influence (Behavior) • Inspirational Motivation • Intellectual Stimulation • Individualized Consideration Transactional • Contingent Reward • Active Management by Exception • Passive Management by Exception Laissez-Faire More Effective Styles Less Effective Styles

28. Do women and men differ in these styles? (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003). Transformational • Idealized Influence (Attributes) • Idealized Influence (Behavior) • Inspirational Motivation • Intellectual Stimulation • Individualized Consideration Transactional • Contingent Reward • Active Management by Exception • Passive Management by Exception Laissez-Faire Women use these styles more Men use these styles more

29. Advantages of having women leaders • Women more often use transformational leadershipand contingent reward • Diversity yields a greater range of perspectives and points of view, which can enhance performance and creativity (but also produce conflict & stress) (e.g., Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) • Studies predict financial performance from the % of women among corporate officers and on boards of directors (e.g., Carter, Simkins, & Simpson, 2003; Krishnan & Park, 2005)

30. Organizational strategies to increase the number of women leaders (Kalev et al., 2006) • Increase women’s social capital with networking & mentoring programs • Creating full-time diversity staff and multi-department diversity committees to develop policy and monitor outcomes

31. More organizational strategies • Offer the same opportunities to women as men—line management positions, travel, relocations, and other appropriately challenging opportunities • Increase representation of women • Avoid placing women in token positions • Having more visible female leaders shifts stereotypes about leaders

32. A major shift in views about leadership Good leadership is increasingly seen as requiring communal qualities We have teams of people, creative people, and it is about keeping them motivated, keeping them on track, making sure that they are following the vision. I am observing, watching and encouraging and motivating . . . . We try to set an agenda throughout the company where everyone’s opinion counts, and it’s nice to be asked. Rose Marie Bravo Then CEO, Burberry Group

33. In the media Mike Krzyzewski, the Duke basketball coach and business guru, has some things to tell you about leadership: For starters: Release your inner woman. Michael Sokolove, 2006 In New York Times Barack Obama understands that real strength comes from a blending of the masculine and feminine. Christi Parsons , 2008 In Chicago Tribune

34. By leadership experts and scholars: Command-and-control leadership has given way to a new approach, often called an influence model of leadership . . . The new leader persuades, empowers, collaborates, and partners David Gergen, 2005 Center for Public Leadership at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government

35. By the Public:Would vote for well-qualified woman presidential candidate if nominated by own party(U.S. Polls)

36. So what does the future hold for women leaders? The changes in ideas about leadership, equating good leadership with communal qualities, should continue to advance women and help women leaders chart a path through the labyrinth.

37. Thanks to my collaborator and coauthor, Alice Eagly, our students—who have helped us in our research, and the many scholars who have contributed to our knowledge about women leaders. And thanks to you for your interest in women’s leadership.

38. References Allen, T. D. (2006). Rewarding good citizens: The relationship between citizenship behavior, gender, and organizational rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 120–143. Bianchi, S. M., Robinson, J. P., & Milkie, M. A. (2006). Changing rhythms of American family life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Biernat, M. & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 544–557. Blau, F. D. & Kahn, L. M. (2006) The U.S. gender pay gap in the 1990s: Slow convergence. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 60, 45-66. Bowles, H., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 84-103. Carli, L. L. (2006, July). Gender and social influence: Women confront the double bind. Paper presented at the 26th International Conference of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece. Carter, D. A., Simkins, B. J., & Simpson, W. G. (2003). Corporate governance, board diversity, and firm value. Financial Review, 38, 33–53. Catalyst. (2004). Women and men in U.S. corporate leadership: Same workplace, different realities? Retrieved January 6, 2010 from http://catalyst.org/file/74/women%20and%20men%20in%20u.s.%20corporate%20leadership%20same%20workplace,%20different%20realities.pdf. Catalyst. (2009). Quick takes: Australia, Canada, South Africa and the United States. Retrieved January 6, 2010 from http://catalyst.org/publication/239/australia-canada-south-africa-united-states. Catalyst. (2009). Quick takes: Women in U.S. management. Retrieved January 6, 2010 from http://catalyst.org/publication/206/women-in-us-management. Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225-248. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & van Engen, M. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 569-591. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22. Forret, M., & Dougherty, T. (2004). Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 419-437. Fortune. (20010). Fortune 500 CEOs: Women on the rise. Retrieved January 4, 2010 from the Fortune Magazine website on http://postcards.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/04/20/fortune-500-ceos-women-on-the-rise/. Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21-42. Galinsky, E., Salmond, K., Bond, J. T., Kropf, M. B., Moore, M., & Harrington, B. (2003). Leaders in a global economy: A study of executive women and men. New York: Families and Work Institute. Guzzo, R., & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47307-338. Halpern, D. F. (2001). Sex difference research: Cognitive abilities. In J. Worrell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (Vol. 2, pp. 963-971). San Diego: Academic Press. Haslam, S. A. & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. Leadership Quarterly, 19, 530-546.

39. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heilman, M. E. & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 431–441. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D. & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed in male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427. Jacobs, J. A., & Gerson, G. (2004). The time divide: Work, family, and gender inequality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. ( 2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 765–780. Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 542–552. Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006). Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies. American Sociological Review, 71(4), 589-617. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., Ristikari, T. (2010). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Unpublished manuscript, University of San Diego. Konrad, A. M., Ritchie, J. E. Jr., Lieb, P., & Corrigall, E. (2000). Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 593-641. Krishnan, H. A., & Park, D. (2005). A few good women—on top management teams. Journal of Business Research, 58, 1712–1720. Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 86-101. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The “good manager”: Masculine or androgynous? Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395-403. Propp, K. M. (1995). An experimental examination of biological sex as a status cue in decision-making groups and its influence on information use. Small Group Research, 26, 451–474. Ryan, M. K., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding women’s appointment to precarious leadership positions. Academy of Management Review, 32, 549–572. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100. Schmitt, D. P., Realo, A, Voracek, M., Allik, J. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 168-182. Smith, R. A. (2002). Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 509-542. Stuhlmacher, A., & Walters, A. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653-677. Thomas-Hunt, M. C., & Phillips, K. W. (2004). When what you know is not enough: Expertise and gender dynamics in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Wosinska, W., Dabul, A. J., Whetstone-Dion, R., & Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Self-presentational responses to success in the organization: The costs and benefits of modesty. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 229-242. Yoder, J. D. & & T. L. Schleicher. (1996). Undergraduates regard deviation from occupational gender stereotypes as costly for women. Sex Roles, 34, 171–188.