Women and Leadership Project

edwardgoe

CH8_GenderLeadershipandDifference.pptx

Home >Psychology homework help >Women and Leadership Project

Gender, Leadership, and difference

Understanding and Evaluating Different Theoretical Positions

Week 3

Chapter 8: Degendering Leadership

This is the first slideset for Week 3, which corresponds to Chapter 8 in the assigned class text.

Goals

The goals of this slideset will be to analyze gender differences from the perspectives of four different theories, and to then examine whether there are gender differences in leadership.

Analyze gender differences from 4 different theoretical perspectives

Explore whether there are gender differences in leadership

Gender and difference from 4 theoretical perspectives

So let’s get started on gender and difference from 4 theoretical perspectives.

Are there important differences?

Some popular generalizations about sex differences that have been touted by feminist scholars in the past:

All sex differences are small,

Inconsistent and artifactual,

Inconsistent with stereotypic differences

<- Not always. Some are large (sexual behaviors), most small to moderate

<- Not always. Depends on context and methods

<- Not always. Women tend to manifest socially sensitive behaviors and men tend to manifest dominant behaviors. People’s beliefs have also been shown to represent the sexes as overlapping groups

First, let me pose the question: Are there important differences between genders? Some popular generalizations about sex differences that have been touted by feminist scholars in the past include the following: all sex differences are small, inconsistent and artifactual, and inconsistent with stereotypic differences. However, not all sex differences are small; in fact, some are large, such as differences in sexual behaviors, but most differences are small to moderate. The notion that all sex differences are inconsistent and artifactual is also not necessarily the case. Let’s first go over what an artifact even is. Although often used interchangeably, confounds and artifacts refer to two different kinds of threat to the validity of social psychological research. Confounds are threats to internal validity.[1] Confounds refer to variables that should have been held constant within a specific study but that were accidentally allowed to vary (and covary with the independent/predictor variable). Artifacts, on the other hand, refer to variables that should have been systematically varied, either within or across studies, but that were accidentally held constant. Artifacts are thus threats to external validity. Artifacts are factors that covary with the treatment and the outcome. So, if differences between males and females on a test are considered artifactual if the background variables that would diminish a sex difference aren’t accounted for (e.g. experience with sports, number of math courses taken). Doesn’t it still provide interesting information? You DO want to measure mediating variables..

Lastly, all sex differences are not inconsistent with stereotypic differences. Women tend to manifest socially sensitive behaviors and men tend to manifest dominant behaviors. People’s beliefs have also been shown to represent the sexes as overlapping groups.

We also know that within sex variability is larger than between sex variability.

But, yes, there are some reliable gender differences

Childhood activity level

Childhood and teen verbal ability

Spatial rotation

Some sexual behaviors

Agreeableness and neuroticism (cross-cultures)

Physical aggression (cross-cultures)

Life expectancy (cross-cultures)

Upper body strength and height (cross-cultures)

Nonetheless, there are some reliable gender differences according to empirical evidence. These reliable differences include childhood activity levels, verbal ability, spatial rotation, some sexual behaviors, agreeableness and neuroticism, physical aggression, life expectancy, and upper body strength and height. Some of these gender differences are even present cross-culturally, as noted in parentheses on this slide.

So why are there some differences?

To answer this, we look to theories:

Social learning theory

Biology-based theory

Evolutionary theory

Social-structural theory

So, there are some differences between genders. Why do these differences exist? Well, these differences can be explained by several theories: social learning theory, biology-based theory, evolutionary theory, and social-structural theory, which we’re going to go over in more detail in this presentation to better understand how each theory offers explanations for gender differences.

But first, what is a theory?

Theory: a general set of organized propositions (claims, statements, assertions) about the causal relation between two or more constructs

A good theory must be falsifiable; that is, operationally defined so that it can be disconfirmed

Theories allow us to generalize from known to unknown

But before we get into these theories, we need to have a solid understanding of what a theory is. A theory is a general set of organized propositions about the causal relation between two or more constructs. A good theory must be falsifiable. That means a good theory should be operationally defined so that it can be disconfirmed. Theories allow us to generalize from known to unknown.

Hypothesis vs. Theory

Hypothesis

A testable prediction about processes that can be observed and measured

Can be confirmed or rejected

Remember you cannot prove anything

Always driven by theory

Make an educated guess

Theory

Explains a broad range of observations

Consistent with all available evidence that has been repeatedly tested

Generates new hypotheses

Integrates several findings into a coherent whole

And what’s the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? Hypotheses are always driven by theories. That is, you make educated guesses– you don’t just hypothesize relationships between variables based on nothing! Hypotheses are testable predictions about processes that can be observed and measured. Hypotheses can also be confirmed or rejected. Recall that in research, we can never prove anything to be true. However, we can find support for our hypothesis. A theory, on the other hand, explains a broad range of observations and is consistent with all available evidence that has been repeatedly tested. Theories help to generate new hypotheses and integrate several findings into a coherent whole. For example, think of Darwin’s theory of evolution– within that theory, you can develop several hypotheses about genetic mutations and natural selection, for instance.

Example

Theory (broad): People are motivated to see those they love in positive ways and their enemies in negative ways.

Hypothesis (specific): When a good friend tries to throw out a piece of garbage and it misses the garbage can, we will believe the friend intended to toss it in the can. When an enemy does the same thing, we will think they intended to litter.

Let’s look at an example to better understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Again, a theory is broader than a hypothesis. A theory might sound like the following statement: People are motivated to see those they love in positive ways and their enemies in negative ways. A hypothesis, based on this theory, would sound like the following statement: When a good friend tries to throw out a piece of garbage and it misses the garbage can, we will believe the friend intended to toss it in the can. When an enemy does the same thing, we will think they intended to litter. Notice how the hypothesis written is much more specific than the theory is.

Back to our regularly scheduled program

Okay– now back to our regularly scheduled programming!

Social Learning theory

Let’s first turn to social learning theory as an explanation for gender differences. Some of you may be familiar with this theory if you’ve ever taken a developmental psychology course. Remember Bandura? That’s our guy for this theory!

Social Learning Theory (continued)

Based on observational learning: children adopt the attitudes and behaviors of same-sex models

Same-sex models become more important at ages 5 to 7, when gender is unchanging aspect of the self

Media influences

Children are encouraged and rewarded for gender-appropriate behaviors

Parents begin the process; siblings, teachers, and peers reinforce it

Children are often encouraged and rewarded for gender-appropriate behaviors. Parents begin this process, while siblings, teachers, and peers continuously reinforce it. Social learning theory is based on observational learning. That is, children adopt the attitudes and behaviors of same-sex models. Same-sex models become more important between the ages of 5 and 7, when gender is an unchanging aspect of the self. The media also plays a role in observational learning.

If you’ve taken a developmental psychology course before, you’ve probably been shown a video of Bandura’s most famous study involving social learning and modelling in children. If you’re unfamiliar with this study, let me fill you in: In 1963, Bandura and colleagues carried out an experimental study to investigate modelling with children. In the study, children observed and adult behaving aggressively towards a large inflatable Bobo doll. The adult attacked the doll in unusual ways (e.g. hitting it with a hammer, saying things like ‘Pow…boom…boom’). The children were then left in the playroom and their behaviour was observed. A control group of children played in the playroom with the same toys but did not observe the adult attacking the doll. Based on the results, the behaviour of the experimental group was very similar to that of the adult model. The control group did not display similar behaviours. Bandura concluded that children imitated the behaviour of the adult model they had observed.

As children, we often model those around us. Do you remember putting on your mom’s heels and walking around the house in them? What led you to engage in that behaviour? It is very likely that you watched your mom put on heels and walk around the house in them, so you followed suit.

Social Learning Approach Evidence – Bandura et al (1963) Aim - To investigate modelling with children

Method – Children observe an adult behaving aggressively towards a large inflatable Bobo doll. The adult attacked the doll in unusual ways (e.g. hitting it with a hammer, saying things like ‘Pow…boom…boom’). The children were then left in the playroom and their behaviour was observed. A control group of children played in the playroom with the same toys but did not observe the adult attacking the doll.

Results – Behaviour of the experimental group was very similar to that of the adult model. The control group did not display similar behaviour.

Conclusion - Children imitated the behaviour of the adult model they had observed.

Developmental Progression of Gender Awareness

By age 2: cognitive awareness of gender; gender-related preferences and play patterns are apparent

By age 3: rudimentary awareness that gender distinctions are lifelong

By age 4: awareness of “gender-appropriate” toys and roles

By age 6: well-formed ideas and prejudices about own and other sex

So let’s go over some developmental progressions of gender awareness in early childhood. By age 2, children start to have a cognitive awareness of gender. Gender-related preferences and play patterns are apparent at this age. By 3, children have a rudimentary awareness that gender distinctions are lifelong. By age 4, children have an awareness of gender-appropriate toys and roles. Note that this is also the age when children can start going to pre-k, and start to observe other children’s play. By age 6, children have well-formed ideas and prejudices about their own sex and other’s sex.

Childhood Gender Differences

Actual psychological differences between the sexes:

Activity level: boys are more physically active (even before birth)

Verbal ability: girls are superior

Visual/spatial abilities: boys are superior

Evident by age 4, persists across life span

Mathematical abilities: in adolescence, boys are better at arithmetic reasoning; girls are better at computational skills

Aggression: starting at age 2, boys are more physically and verbally aggressive; girls are more likely to display covert aggression

Here are some childhood psychological differences between the sexes. Boys tend to be more physically active than girls, even prior to birth. Girls have stronger verbal ability than boys do, while boys are superior in their visual and spatial abilities. This is evident by age 4 and the difference persists across the life span. In adolescence, boys are better at arithmetic reasoning, while girls are better at computational skills. Lastly, starting at age 2, boys are more physically and verbally aggressive. However, girls are more likely to display covert aggression.

What do we make of this?

Psychological gender differences:

Are often small

Gender accounts for only 5% of the variation children display in overt aggressive behaviors

Vary by culture

In Israel, women and men score equally well on tests of mathematical ability

Are not biologically inevitable; can be altered within cultures/societies and individuals fairly easily

Reflect group averages

So what do we make of these differences? Well, these differences are often small. Gender accounts for only 5% of the variation children display in overt aggressive behaviors, for instance. These differences also vary by culture. In Israel, for example, women and men score equally well on tests of mathematical ability. These psychological gender differences are also not biologically inevitable. In fact, they can be altered within cultures and societies and within individuals fairly easily. Lastly, these differences reflect group averages.

Summary of Social Learning Theory

Males and females are much more psychologically similar than they are different

In conclusion, males and females are actually much more psychologically similar than they are different. Take a look at this illustration. These two distributions of scores-- one for males, one for females-- give some idea of the size of the gap between the sexes in abilities for which sex differences are consistently found. Despite a small difference in average performance, the scores of males and females overlap considerably.

Biology-based theory

Now, let’s move into biology-based theory.

Evidence for Biological Influences on Childhood Gender Differences (Valian, 1999)

Hormonal Influences

If females are exposed to excess androgen prenatally (CAH), result is masculinized external genitalia

More active

Alters play behavior (more rough and tumble)

Increases interest in same-sex relationships

Influences career and family choices

BUT girls with CAH not more aggressive than girls without

There is some empirical evidence for biological influences on childhood gender differences. The first influence is hormonal. Many sex differences are continuous, not categorical, such as estrogen and testosterone. We don’t just have one or the other, but rather, we have varying levels of each hormone. Research has shown that if females are exposed to excess androgen prenatally, also called CAH, the result is masculinized external genitalia. These females also tend to be more active, engage in more rough and tumble playing behaviors, and are more interested in same-sex relationships. This also influences career and family choices. However, girls with CAH are not more aggressive than girls without it.

Experiments with nonhuman primates show that administering testosterone to female fetuses late in gestation yields more typically masculine behavior. Placement of rat fetuses in utero influences sex-typed behavior.

Evidence for Social-Labeling Influences

Surgery and gender reassignment are generally successful for androgenized females

Prior to 18 months of age

After age 3, very difficult:

Masculine gender typing

Labeling of self as boy

There is also empirical evidence for social-labeling influences. Surgery and gender reassignment are generally successful for androgenized females, specifically those prior to 18 months of age. After the age of 3, it becomes much more difficult due to already having labeled themselves as boys.

Aggression from a Biological Perspective

Sex differences appear at age 3 (one year later than activity level)

Gender differences in aggression are stable generation-to-generation

Lots of within-gender variability

Let’s take a look at aggression from a biological perspective. Sex differences tend to appear at age 3, which is one year later than activity levels. Gender differences in aggression are stable across generations, and there is lots of within-gender variability in levels of aggression. But it is also important to take this research with a grain of salt, as the data reflect group averages, not any particular individual. Recall that gender only accounts for 5% of the variance in overt aggression, meaning that 95% of the variance in overt aggression is explained by individual differences, not gender.

Summary of Biological Based Theory

Biology and social environments jointly influence gender development

It’s not nature versus nurture, but nature through nurture

In conclusion, biology and social environments jointly influence gender development. This is where those developmental psychology courses might come in handy, as you might already be familiar with the nature versus nurture debate. With regard to gender development, it’s not nature versus nurture, as is the case in most arguments, but rather nature through nurture.

Evolutionary theory

Now, let’s get into examining gender differences through the lens of evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary Theory (continued)

Differences originated long ago, and are now inherent to our very nature, though they exert impact through proximal causes (i.e., emotions, perceptions, needs)

Males and females faced different evolutionary pressures

Natural selection created fundamental differences in male and female needs/preferences

Child rearing v. reproductive success

Evolutionary theory argues that differences originated long ago, and are now inherent to our very nature, though they exert impact through proximal causes, such as emotions, perceptions, and needs. Based on evolutionary theory, males and females faced different evolutionary pressures. Natural selection created fundamental differences in male and female needs and preferences, such as child rearing versus reproductive success.

Sex Differences in Sexual Selection Problems

Women invested more in children than men (gestation, child birth, nursing)

Paternity uncertainty

How do these sex differences in adaptive problems and the adaptations that evolved accordingly manifest in men and women’s behavior today?

According to evolutionary theory, women invested more in children than men did. They carried the baby, gave birth, and nursed their children. For men, there was a lot of paternity uncertainty, meaning that men could never really be sure that the child was theirs, while women never faced that issue, as any child they bore was their own. Because of paternity uncertainty, however, men were less invested in child rearing than women. So how do these sex differences in adaptive problems and the adaptations that evolved accordingly manifest in men and women’s behavior today?

Today’s Manifestations

Whether/when to enter into particular sexual relationships

What partner characteristics are valued in sexual relationships

Sex differences in sexual jealously

Today, these sex differences manifest themselves in how we decide whether or when to enter into particular sexual relationships, what partner characteristics are valued in sexual relationships, and in sex differences in sexual jealousy.

Whether/when to enter into particular sexual relationships

Men report being much more willing than women to engage in sexual relations after any length of acquaintance, from 1 hour up to 5 years (Buss & Schmidt, 1993)

When approached by an opposite-sex stranger who immediately makes an invitation for casual sex, 75% of men said yes, whereas 100% of women said no (Clark & Hatfield, 1989)

Alternative explanation for men’s lower thresholds for short-term mating:

Socio/Cultural Factors

Cultural double standard for sexual behavior of men and women

Promiscuous sexuality/short-term mating is more acceptable for men than women (D’Emilio & Freedman, 1997)

Let’s look at that first manifestation a little more closely: whether or when to enter into particular sexual relationships. Research has shown that men report being much more willing than women to engage in sexual relations after any length of acquaintance, from 1 hour up to 5 years. Research has also shown that when approached by an opposite-sex stranger who immediately makes an invitation for casual sex, 75% of men said yes, whereas 100% of women said no. However, there is an alternative explanation for men’s lower thresholds for short-term mating, and it’s the cultural double standard for sexual behavior of men and women. Specifically, promiscuous sexuality and short-term mating is more socially acceptable for men than women.

Characteristics Valued by Males and Females in Sexual Relationships

Women

Value resources and earning potential

Prefer older mate

Men

Value physical attractiveness

Prefer younger mate

Let’s take a look at the second manifestation: what partner characteristics are valued in sexual relationships. Women tend to value resources and earning potential, and prefer older partners. Men, on the other hand, value physical attractiveness and as such, prefer younger partners.

Alternative Explanation

Socio/Cultural Factors

“A woman’s preference for a wealthy man can be explained by the simple reality that… males monopolize ownership of productive resources.” (Eagly & Wood, 1999, p. 415)

“The older man and younger woman thus fir more easily than same age partners into the culturally expected pattern of breadwinner and homemaker” (p. 415)

There is, of course, an alternative explanation for this behavior! Again, it’s socio/cultural factors. A women’s preference for a wealthy man can be explained by the simple reality that males monopolize ownership of productive resources. The older man and younger woman thus fir more easily than same age partners into the culturally expected pattern of breadwinner and homemaker.

Sex Differences in Jealousy

Think of a serious committed romantic relationship with someone that you have had in the past, that you currently have, or that you would like to have. Imagine that you discover that the man/woman with whom you’ve been seriously involved became interested in someone else. What would upset or distress you more?

A) imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to someone else

B) imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person

Let’s get into that last manifestation, which might have caught you attention: sex differences in jealousy. Here’s a little exercise: think of a serious committed romantic relationship with someone that you have had in the past, that you currently have, or that you would like to have. Imagine that you discover that the man or woman with whom you’ve been seriously involved became interested in someone else. What would upset or distress you more? Imagining your partner forming a deep emotional attachment to someone else, or imagining your partner enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person?

Findings (Tagler & Jeffers, 2013)

Men were more distressed by Option B (“sexual infidelity”) than Option A (“emotional infidelity”)

Women were more distressed by Option A (“emotional infidelity”) than Option B (“sexual infidelity”)

This was actually a study that was conducted! The study aimed to measure attitudes toward partner infidelity, and results were shown to be consistent with evolutionary theory: men, to a significantly larger degree than women, evaluated partner sexual infidelity more negatively than emotional infidelity. Women were more distressed by the first option, emotional infidelity. The evolutionary interpretation here is that men are most concerned with sexual infidelity because of the risk of inadvertently raising another man’s child (paternity uncertainty), while women are most concerned with emotional infidelity because of the threat of losing their mate’s support.

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491301100407

(Tagler & Jeffers, 2013)

Alternative Explanations

Social Desirability: we say what we are expected to say! Men are expected to say that sexual intercourse makes them jealous and women are expected to be angry about emotional infidelity

“Double Shot” Hypothesis: sexual and emotional infidelity are not entirely independent! Specifically, women believe that men can have sex without emotional commitment, but not emotional commitment without sex. Men, however, are evenly split on whether the same applies to women (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996)

There are, however, some alternative interpretations for why men are more upset by B than A, and why women are more upset by A than B. The first is social desirability. The simple explanation here is that we say what we are expected to say. Men are expected to say that sexual intercourse makes them jealous and women are expected to be angry about emotional infidelity. The other alternative explanation is the double shot hypothesis. This suggests that sexual and emotional infidelity are not entirely independent. Specifically, women believe that men can have sex without emotional commitment, but not emotional commitment without sex. Men, however, are evenly split on whether the same applies to women.

Evolutionary Theory (cont.)

Q: Is there a way to determine what different evolutionary problems men and women might have faced without looking at how we currently believe them to differ?

A: Yes- that assumes that current characteristics of relationships and male and female behavior and attitudes were also typical in early human history (they might not have been). Also, you run into the problem of being able to say that whatever is the case must be that way because it was initially adaptive.

Take a look at this question: is there a way to determine what different evolutionary problems men and women might have faced without looking at how we currently believe them to differ? The answer is yes– that assumes that current characteristics of relationships and male and female behaviors and attitudes were also typical in early human history, and they might not have been. You also run into the problem of being able to say that whatever is the case must be that way because it was initially adaptive.

Summary of Evolutionary Theory

While natural selection and evolution undoubtedly explain much natural variation between populations, the idea that human gender differences in psychological and social behavior are largely “natural” and evolutionarily-based does not have strong support in the data

In conclusion, while natural selection and evolution undoubtedly explain much natural variation between populations, the idea that human gender differences in psychological and social behavior are largely natural and evolutionarily-based does not have strong support in the data.

Social-Structural theory

Lastly, let’s talk a little bit about social-structural theory.

Social-Structural Theory (continued)

Social Structuralists: maintain that many psychological sex differences can be explained by a society’s division of labor and the social constraints that follow from it

Social Structural Theories: identify proximal, contemporaneous causes for the behavior of men and women (though proximal causes may have biological roots)

Explanation for sex-differentiated behavior: the concentration of men and women in different social roles

Social-structural theory argues that many psychological sex differences can be explained by a society’s division of labor and the social constraints that follow from this. These theories identify proximal, contemporaneous causes for the behavior of men and women, although proximal causes may have biological roots. Through this lens, the explanation for sex-differentiated behavior is the concentration of men and women in different social roles.

Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM)

GEM: a measure of the extent to which women participate equally with men in economic, political, and decision-making roles

There’s this thing called the gender empowerment measure, which measures the extent to which women participate equally with men in economic, political, and decision-making roles across countries.

GEM Values by Country (Human Development Report, 2006; Eagly & Carli, 1999)

Top 12

Norway 0.932

Sweden 0.883

Iceland 0.866

Denmark 0.861

Belgium 0.855

Finland 0.853

Netherlands 0.844

Australia 0.833

Germany 0.816

Austria 0.815

Canada 0.810

United States 0.808

Bottom 12

Yemen 0.128

Saudi Arabia 0.242

Egypt 0.262

Turkey 0.289

Iran, Islamic Rep. of 0.326

United Arab Emirates 0.353

Sri Lanka 0.372

Cambodia 0.373

Bangladesh 0.374

Pakistan 0.377

Mongolia 0.388

Georgia 0.407

So here are those values by country. You can see that top 12 countries in which women participate equally with men include Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, and Belgium. The bottom 12 countries where women do not participate equally with men include Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.

Research on the GEM by country found that as the GEM increased (Eagly & Carli, 1999):

The tendency for women to place greater value than men on a partner’s earning potential decreased

The tendency for men to place greater importance than women on a partner’s domestic skills increased

Women expressed less preference for older men, men expressed less preference for younger women

Are there gender-based differences in leadership?

So now that we’ve covered the four big theories that help to understand gender differences, let’s look at whether there are gender-based differences in leadership.

Do men and women differ in their approach to leadership?

Research demonstrates small sex differences in some traits relevant to good leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2007)

Implies female advantage at least as often as male advantage

Nonetheless, much of the rhetoric around women and leadership uses differences by gender to limit or deny women’s access to leadership

Leadership requires attention to both task- and relationship-oriented processes

Leadership is not directly tied to overtly feminine or masculine qualities

Research has shown only small sex differences in some traits relevant to good leadership. It actually implies female advantage at least as often as male advantage. Nonetheless, much of the rhetoric around women and leadership uses differences by gender to limit or deny women’s access to leadership. Leadership requires attention to both task- and relationship-oriented processes. Remember we talked about consideration and initiating structure in earlier lectures? Leadership is not directly tied to overtly feminine nor masculine qualities.

Research about Gender Differences in Leadership

Leadership Attribute	Summary of Research Findings
Aggression	Men exceed women in physical aggression expressed toward same-sex peers and in workplace aggression. Men are only slightly more verbally aggressive than women.
Dominance & Assertiveness	Men score only slightly to moderately higher than women. Men and women may express assertiveness differently (men promote self-interest, women express it through group-oriented behaviors). Men express more interest in social hierarchies than women.
Emotional Intelligence & Empathy	Women generally score higher than men on emotional intelligence. Women also score higher on consciousness of others.
Risk-Taking	Men generally score higher than women, though the difference has been shrinking over time.

Here are some research findings summarized in a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is a statistical analysis that combines the results of multiple scientific studies in an effort to increase power, improve estimates of the size of the effect, and to resolve uncertainties when studies disagree on findings and conclusions. This meta-analysis in particular aimed to identify whether there were gender differences in leadership across a series of leadership attributes. With regard to aggression, the meta-analysis concluded that men exceed women in physical aggression expressed toward same-sex peers and in workplace aggression. However, men are only slightly more verbally aggressive than women. In terms of dominance and assertiveness, men score only slightly to moderately higher than women. Men and women may express assertiveness differently in that men promote self-interest, while women express it through group-oriented behaviors. Men also express more interest in social hierarchies than women do.

Emotional intelligence is the ability to recognize and regulate emotions in ourselves and others. Emotionally intelligent leadership promotes a focus on 3 facets: consciousness of self, consciousness of others, and consciousness of contexts. With regard to this attribute, women generally score higher than men on emotional intelligence and score higher on consciousness of others. In terms of risk-taking, men generally score higher than women, though the difference has been shrinking over time.

Research findings are summarized in a meta-analysis by Eagly & Carli (2007).

Research about Gender Differences in Leadership (continued)

Leadership Attribute	Summary of Research Findings
Morality & Ethics	Women generally score higher on moral orientation than men. This may be linked to women generally scoring higher on religiosity than men.
Neuroticism*	Women generally score higher than men.
Extraversion*	Mixed results. Women score higher on exhibiting warmth, positive emotions, and gregariousness. Men score higher on assertiveness and excitement-seeking.
Openness to Experience*	Mixed results. Women score higher on valuing aesthetics, feelings, and actions. Men score higher on values, ideas, and fantasies.
Agreeableness*	Women generally score higher than men.
Conscientiousness*	Mixed results. Women score higher on dutifulness, achievement striving, and order. Men score higher on self-discipline, deliberation, and competence.

Here are some more findings from the meta-analysis. Traits marked with an * represent the personality traits known in psychology as the Big Five (OCEAN). Neuroticism is defined as exhibiting poor emotional adjustments and negative emotions. Agreeableness is defined as exhibiting qualities of caring, trusting, compliance, and gentleness. With the exception of extraversion and conscientiousness, these traits are only weakly predictive of leadership behavior.

In terms of morality and ethics, women generally score higher on moral orientation than men. This may be linked to women generally scoring higher on religiosity than men.

Research findings are summarized in a meta-analysis by Eagly & Carli (2007).

The problem with a “Women’s way of leadership”

Empirical research reveals very small actual differences between men and women’s leadership styles, yet these differences are often exaggerated in our society. So let’s talk about the problem with labeling any set of characteristics as a woman’s way of leadership.

“Women’s Ways of Leadership” (Kezar & Wheaton, 2017)

Involves a focus on ethics and values and people who:

Emphasize mutual power and influence processes

Attend to relationships and tasks

Encourage democratic and participatory forms of decision-making

Empirical research reveals very small actual differences between men and women’s leadership styles, yet these differences are often exaggerated

Labeling any set of characteristics as “women’s ways of leadership” can be dangerous…

A woman’s way of leadership involves a focus on ethics and values and people who emphasize mutual power and influence processes, attend to relationships and tasks, and encourage democratic and participatory forms of decision-making. Labeling this as a woman’s way of leadership can be dangerous.

Consequences of elevating women’s ways of leading as unique from broader conceptions of leadership

Those who do not exhibit gendered characteristics may be excluded from leadership or be told that they should lead in more gender-congruent ways

One limitation of the research on gender differences in leadership is that almost none of the participants identify as genderfluid, leaving those voices out of research entirely

People with different beliefs and expectations can view the same behavior differently

Leads to molding: describing behaviors and leadership in gendered terms, even when the research does not support the assertion

Reinforces stereotypes about gender and leadership

Reinforces dichotomous views and limits options for all leaders

One limitation of the research on gender differences in leadership is that almost none of the participants identify as genderfluid, leaving those voices out of research entirely. As such, those who do not exhibit gendered characteristics may be excluded from leadership or be told that they should lead in more gender-congruent ways. Moreover, people with different beliefs and expectations can view the same behavior differently, which leads to molding. Molding is defined as describing behaviors and leadership in gendered terms, even when the research does not support the assertion. This reinforces stereotypes about gender and leadership. Another consequence of highlighting women’s ways of leading as unique from broader conceptions of leadership is that it reinforces dichotomous views and limits options for all leaders.

End

This is the end of the first slideset for Week 3.