Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior

Scott, K. Andrea; Brown, Douglas J.

doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.002

Cited by 190 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, women are rated as less competent, less influential, and less likely to have played a leadership role than their male counterparts (Heilman & Haynes, 2005). Likewise, raters are less likely to recognize agentic behavior or endorse behaviors typically associated with leaders when the target is female rather than male (Martell, 1996;Scott & Brown, 2006). Thus, when all else is equal, ACCURACY OF FOLLOWER LEADERSHIP RATINGS 27 female leaders are generally perceived as less effective than male leaders (Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Richard, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings

Hansbrough

Lord

Schyns

2015

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(2015) 'Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings.', Leadership quarterly., 26 (2). pp. 220-237. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua. 2014.11.006 Publisher's copyright statement: NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in The Leadership Quarterly. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 2, April 2015, 10.1016/j.leaqua.2014 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractAccurate behavioral measurement is essential to developing a science of leadership, yet accurate measurement has remained elusive. The use of follower reports of leader behavior creates challenges given that a large body of basic and applied research suggests that behavioral ratings reflect not only recall of actual behaviors, but also inferences based on semantic memory, which may vary among individuals. In this paper, we examine several explanations for rater effects that are associated with follower individual differences, contextual factors, and even research methods, such as the type of measure used, that may bias ratings of leader behavior. We also develop a conceptual model to illustrate these processes. Finally, we offer potential solutions to increase accuracy in follower reports of leader behavior. ACCURACY OF FOLLOWER LEADERSHIP RATINGS 3The leadership field relies heavily on follower ratings of leader behavior both in research settings to test leadership theories and in applied settings for leadership development purposes (e.g., 360-degree feedback). Given that leadership reflects a dynamic interaction between leaders and followers (Riggio, Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008;Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-Bien, 2006), follower ratings provide an important source of data. Indeed, Shamir (2007) describes followers as "co-producers of leadership." However, reliance on follower ratings of leader behavior as a key measure of leadership processes, or even as the sole measure, creates significant challenges. In particular, followers become important contributors to the processes they are used to measure, raising both the issue of accuracy of leader ratings and the potential for biases in ratings processes that are associ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings

Hansbrough

Lord

Schyns

2015

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Eagly and Carli (2007) have researched women's occupational segregation in staff roles and also the concentration of women in middle-management roles. To borrow Scott and Brown's (2006) words from "Female first, leader second?," Chinese Canadians in the current study have achieved meaningful leadership roles but there is a preference to staff for ethnicity first and leadership second. If indeed leadership skills are sufficient for Asian markets, they should also be suitable for mainstream markets.…”

Section: Where Are the Chinese Canadian Leaders?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intercultural Leadership: Variations in Chinese Canadian Perspectives of Career Mobility into Senior Leadership Roles

Linehan

2017

Applied Interdisciplinarity in Scholar Practitioner Programs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some implicit measures have been shown to resist attempts at deliberate faking, in part because they are designed to capture processes that are difficult to consciously control (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mücke, 2002;LeBreton, Barksdale, Robin, & James, 2007;Steffens, 2004). As such, they are especially useful in situations where evaluation apprehension is likely, such as measuring satisfaction with one's job or supervisor in a study sponsored by the organization (Leavitt, Fong, et al, 2011), when assessing personality in selection settings (James, 1998), or when reporting race and gender attitudes (Scott & Brown, 2006). Furthermore, implicit measures would also be useful under conditions where self-deception is likely to influence self-reports.…”

Section: Characteristics and Advantages Of Implicit Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Getting Explicit About the Implicit

Uhlmann

Leavitt

Menges

et al. 2012

Organizational Research Methods

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accumulated evidence from social and cognitive psychology suggests that many behaviors are driven by processes operating outside of awareness, and an array of implicit measures to capture such processes have been developed. Despite their potential application, implicit measures have received relatively modest attention within the organizational sciences, due in part to barriers to entry and uncertainty about appropriate use of available measures. The current article is intended to serve as an implicit measurement ''toolkit'' for organizational scholars, and as such our goals are fourfold. First, we present theory critical to implicit measures, highlighting advantages of capturing implicit processes in organizational research. Second, we present a functional taxonomy of implicit measures (i.e., accessibility-based, association-based, and interpretation-based measures) and explicate assumptions and appropriate use of each. Third, we discuss key criteria to help researchers identify specific implicit measures most appropriate for their own work, including a discussion of principles for the psychometric validation of implicit measures. Fourth, we conclude by identifying avenues for impactful ''next-generation'' research within the organizational sciences that would benefit from the use of implicit measures.

show abstract

Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior

Cited by 190 publications

References 48 publications

Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings

Reconsidering the accuracy of follower leadership ratings

Intercultural Leadership: Variations in Chinese Canadian Perspectives of Career Mobility into Senior Leadership Roles

Getting Explicit About the Implicit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About