Gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors: A meta-analytic review of 50 years of research

IF 9.1 1区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT
Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl , Caitlin E. Smith Sockbeson , Alison V. Hall , Cynthia Saldanha Halliday
{"title":"Gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors: A meta-analytic review of 50 years of research","authors":"Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl ,&nbsp;Caitlin E. Smith Sockbeson ,&nbsp;Alison V. Hall ,&nbsp;Cynthia Saldanha Halliday","doi":"10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As more women have entered the managerial ranks, discussion about differences between men’s and women’s leadership behaviors have persisted. The current study reviews and analyzes 50 years of research to examine gender differences in evaluations of their leadership behaviors. Across 13 new meta-analyses using data from 1970 to 2020, we examine evaluations of leadership behaviors that vary across two dimensions: communal-agentic and effective-ineffective, including: democratic/participative, relationship-oriented/consideration, idealized influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, ethical/moral, autocratic/directive, task-oriented/initiating structure, contingent reward, MBE-active, inspirational motivation, MBE-passive, and laissez-faire. The meta-analytic results suggest that women are seen as engaging in more effective agentic and communal leadership behaviors, compared to men, while men are seen as engaging in less effective and more passive leadership behavior, compared to women. Relying on social role theory and arguments from the double standards of competence literature, we also examine whether the relationship between gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors differs across time and levels of leadership. Interestingly, only one primary study across all our analyses utilized an objective instead of a subjective measure of leader behavior, underscoring the imperative for more objective assessments in the future. Practical implications and future research directions are also discussed. All supplemental material can be found at: <span><span>https://osf.io/enm3d/?view_only=ea99d34911284304a4b2bf61079d5ecd</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48434,"journal":{"name":"Leadership Quarterly","volume":"35 6","pages":"Article 101822"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Leadership Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984324000511","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As more women have entered the managerial ranks, discussion about differences between men’s and women’s leadership behaviors have persisted. The current study reviews and analyzes 50 years of research to examine gender differences in evaluations of their leadership behaviors. Across 13 new meta-analyses using data from 1970 to 2020, we examine evaluations of leadership behaviors that vary across two dimensions: communal-agentic and effective-ineffective, including: democratic/participative, relationship-oriented/consideration, idealized influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, ethical/moral, autocratic/directive, task-oriented/initiating structure, contingent reward, MBE-active, inspirational motivation, MBE-passive, and laissez-faire. The meta-analytic results suggest that women are seen as engaging in more effective agentic and communal leadership behaviors, compared to men, while men are seen as engaging in less effective and more passive leadership behavior, compared to women. Relying on social role theory and arguments from the double standards of competence literature, we also examine whether the relationship between gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors differs across time and levels of leadership. Interestingly, only one primary study across all our analyses utilized an objective instead of a subjective measure of leader behavior, underscoring the imperative for more objective assessments in the future. Practical implications and future research directions are also discussed. All supplemental material can be found at: https://osf.io/enm3d/?view_only=ea99d34911284304a4b2bf61079d5ecd.
性别与领导行为的评估:50年研究的元分析回顾
随着越来越多的女性进入管理阶层,关于男性和女性领导行为差异的讨论一直在持续。目前的研究回顾和分析了50年的研究,以检查性别差异在评估他们的领导行为。通过使用1970年至2020年的数据进行的13项新的元分析,我们研究了对领导行为的评估在两个维度上的变化:公共代理和有效-无效,包括:民主/参与、关系导向/考虑、理想化影响、个性化考虑、智力刺激、伦理/道德、专制/指令、任务导向/启动结构、偶发奖励、mbeactive、鼓舞性动机、mbepassive和自由放任。元分析结果表明,与男性相比,女性被认为参与了更有效的代理和集体领导行为,而男性被认为参与了更低效和更被动的领导行为,与女性相比。基于社会角色理论和能力双重标准文献的论证,我们还考察了性别与领导行为评价之间的关系是否随时间和领导水平的不同而不同。有趣的是,在我们所有的分析中,只有一项主要研究使用了客观而不是主观的领导者行为衡量标准,这强调了未来更客观评估的必要性。讨论了本文的实际意义和未来的研究方向。所有补充材料可在https://osf.io/enm3d/?view_only=ea99d34911284304a4b2bf61079d5ecd上找到。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Leadership Quarterly is a social-science journal dedicated to advancing our understanding of leadership as a phenomenon, how to study it, as well as its practical implications. Leadership Quarterly seeks contributions from various disciplinary perspectives, including psychology broadly defined (i.e., industrial-organizational, social, evolutionary, biological, differential), management (i.e., organizational behavior, strategy, organizational theory), political science, sociology, economics (i.e., personnel, behavioral, labor), anthropology, history, and methodology.Equally desirable are contributions from multidisciplinary perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信