When women reach top leadership levels in business, qualities such as sensitivity that might once have been perceived as drawbacks become assets, according to a new study by Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, an assistant professor of management in Duke’s Fuqua School of Business. The study was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
In addition, women at top levels are perceived as being more overall effective leaders than their male counterparts, Rosette said.
A woman must negotiate her female identity as well as her leadership identity as she progresses up the chain of authority, Rosette said. The traditional model of leadership has included masculine traits such as independence and dominance, but as women reach top management levels, the paradigm begins to shift.
Because they are perceived as having to work harder to get to the top, women who achieve success on their own are perceived as being more effective, and feminine traits such as niceness and cooperation -- once seen as weaknesses -- are then considered advantages, Rosette said.
Rosette recently spoke with Faith & Leadership about her study on women in leadership and how the paradigm of leadership might be shifting. The following is an edited transcript.
Q: Tell us about the study you recently completed on feminine traits in leadership. What were some of your main findings?
The underlying premise of the research is that women have shown competence in middle [levels] of business, where they are usually perceived as exceptionally communal, very relational and very nice. But there’s not been a lot of research on how women are perceived at the tiptop levels of organizations.
We conducted two studies. In the first study, we wanted to see how women in these top positions might be evaluated. And what were the conditions under which they might be successful or perceived as even more successful compared to their male colleagues.
We found that when women were successful and perceived as being responsible for their success, they were evaluated as having more intellect and more competence than men. And also as being a bit more relationship-focused -- two things that traditionally have not been perceived to coexist in the very tiptop rings of organizations.
In the second study, we wanted to find out why. We wanted to know, is this a top-leader phenomenon, or could this occur at lower levels in the organization? We found that the idea of women being perceived as more competent than men was mediated by the idea of a double competence standard for women: they are perceived to need to work twice as hard. If they work twice as hard and they are sitting in those tiptop positions, there’s a presumption amongst the evaluators that, “Wow, she must be exceptionally competent.”
At this level of the organization, the feminization of management is being perceived as more of a positive than a negative thing. We also found that not only were [women] leaders perceived as being more communal and more competent, they were also perceived as being more overall effective leaders compared to men. This phenomenon that occurred at the tiptop of the organization didn’t occur at the middle level. Those are the findings in a nutshell.
Q: Basically, then, you have found that traits typically thought to hold women back actually work to women’s advantage. Do you have any ideas as to why that might be?
Other things being equal, if you have two people and this person encountered far more obstacles, far more barriers than this person and she or he still makes it to the top, you’re going to think that person is exceptionally competent.
Also, with regards to the idea of the feminization of management and communality, this aspect of our traditional prototype of leadership may be shifting a bit. In the past, it has been all masculine, all the time.
But we also know that some of our male leaders that lead in a communal way, where they are more participative and engaging, are thought to be some of the best leaders now. The leadership paradigm may be shifting.
During the presidential campaign, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s image was carefully crafted; she wore the business suits. It’s almost like she was trying to be a little masculine: I’m one of the guys. I’m just as confident as they are. I’m just as strong as they are. I’m very firm, very stern.
Then she’s on the campaign trail [in New Hampshire] and she cries. And she wins the primary. It was like these two things went hand in hand. She’s had a certain level of success. Now, voters seemed to say, I’m going to give her a bump over the male leader because she’s perceived as both confident and feminine, if you will, and more communal.
Q: In the studies you mention a double standard of confidence in more masculine spheres. What does that mean in a field like church leadership that is male-dominated but not necessarily masculine in the sense of, say, football?
The premise of our argument is that, and I suspect this would be in the church as well, there’s a substantial overlap between what we would describe as the central traits of good leadership at the top level -- things like competence and independence and capacity and dominance, if you will -- and masculine traits.
Now, if I ask you to describe women, what’s the first thing that comes to mind? Again, we’re talking in terms of very stereotypical perception. And traditionally what the research has said is that there’s not going to be as much overlap [with the central traits of leadership] if I evaluate women as opposed to evaluating men.
That means, when you have this perception of what a leader is and who should fall into that role, it’s more likely to be a man than it is to be a woman. With regards to the double standard of confidence, the idea is that you have two people, one is a man, one is a woman, and they have similar performances, but oftentimes the woman’s performance will not be evaluated in the same manner in which a man’s performance will be evaluated.
Q: What are your thoughts about why these evaluations of women would differ at middle levels versus top levels?
There is a certain amount of legitimacy that women have to attain. And oftentimes if they are in a leadership role or if they are in a management role, they have to work a little bit harder. Those underlying perceptions perpetuate themselves.
Q: Until you’ve broken through that glass ceiling, you don’t benefit, because you’re not yet perceived as having overcome those obstacles.
Exactly.
Q: What are the implications of the double standard for women who want to be in positions of leadership in business?
Women have to be mindful. There’s much more equity than there has been in the past, but unfortunately it’s not at those top levels yet. A woman has to know this. She has to negotiate two identities. She has to negotiate her female identity and her leader identity as she progresses up through the chain. She has to recognize that at different levels of the organization she’s going to be perceived different ways.
We’d like to say, “Just do your best and it’s always going to be recognized,” but unfortunately that’s not the case. Until the numbers are there at the top echelons, you have to recognize things that you’re going to have to negotiate. Who the audience is may affect which behaviors you emphasize, because there are different standards for women as they progress up the ladder. It’s not just for women; it’s for any group that is not the normative group currently holding those positions.
Q: If the normal expectations of leadership change, perhaps some of the advantages for women leaders will decline, as they are no longer perceived as overcoming so much to get to that position.
Actually, that would not be a bad thing. I’m not arguing that the female-leader advantage is a good thing. I’m not arguing it’s a bad thing. It would be ideal if we didn’t have this finding. In general, it would be ideal if you could just be in the top position and have both masculine and feminine skills evaluated and valued the same. My findings would go away, but that would mean that the numbers have changed and that would be a really good thing.
Q: Your study also finds that success has to be very clear. But what success looks like for church leadership is not always clear.
When it is crystal clear who is responsible for success, then you get certain types of benefits. If the success is not clear, that allows room for alternative explanations, doubt as to whether she really did it or did somebody else do it.
Because we have this norm in terms of what is or what is not effective leadership, there are doubts and justifications that sometimes people make. Did she really do it? A woman has never done that before. Could it possibly be explained by something else? When that occurs, then you probably don’t get those benefits.
Q: What does that mean for someone who’s hoping to move through all those levels? Do you change your personality? Do you hope that your communal characteristics will carry you through until you get to the top where they are perceived as strengths instead of weaknesses?
Being aware that there is a perception that women have to work twice as hard and that there are negative aspects sometimes associated with femininity is half the battle. Be very aware.
I wouldn’t recommend that someone alter their personality. They need to be aware of how their behaviors can be interpreted. Those perceptions are out there. The only way to change them is by changing the numbers.
I currently do research on blacks and racial minorities, Hispanics and Asians, and how they are perceived in various leadership positions. Sometimes people say, “Well, we have Obama as president now; those perceptions should go away.”
But if I ask what’s the race of the next president going to be, you’re probably going to say, “White.” Because we only have one [black president], and one doesn’t change the perception. If you want to change perceptions, you have to change the numbers. Once the numbers change, the perceptions will follow.
Just be aware of the perceptions. Be aware that they are going to change as you progress through the hierarchy. Recognize that huge strides have been made, but equity or equality has not yet been established.
