Gender solidarity in hierarchical organizations

Fajak, Amanda; Haslam, S. Alexander

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01158.x

Cited by 27 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…() but contrasting to meta‐analytic findings (Eagly et al ., , ). In Fajak and Haslam's () terms, there is a “gender solidarity” effect among the women in our study. Three explanations exist for this effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender‐typing of leadership: Evaluations of real and ideal managers

Cuadrado

García-Ael²,

Molero³

2015

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research focuses on female underrepresentation in managerial positions. Specifically, two studies examine gender-typing for managerial roles in Spain using ratings for real and ideal managers. In addition, we analyse the existence of same-gender bias on evaluations of the behavior of actual leaders. In the first study, 195 Spanish workers evaluate the extent to which gender-stereotypical traits are important for becoming a successful middle manager in three conditions (female managers, male managers, and managers in general). In the second study, we explore the degree to which the behavior of real Spanish managers is gender-typed and the existence of same-gender bias on leadership styles - transformational, transactional and avoidant/passive - and on leadership outcomes - effectiveness, extra effort and satisfaction - from the perspective of subordinates (N = 605). Overall, the results demonstrate that masculine characteristics were rated as more important than feminine characteristics for managerial positions, and they were more often assigned to male managers than to female managers. Unexpectedly, this manager-male association is stronger among female participants than among male participants. Our findings also demonstrate that women subordinates evaluate their same-sex supervisors more favorably in transformational leadership, effectiveness, and extra effort. The negative consequences derived from gender-typing managerial positions are highlighted according to the role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. The positive effects of in-group female bias on behavior ratings are also noted. The mixed implications of these results for women's advancement to leadership positions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender‐typing of leadership: Evaluations of real and ideal managers

Cuadrado

García-Ael²,

Molero³

2015

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lorenzi-Cioldi (1998) also argued that gender is a more salient category for women than men, because of their lower status; moreover, men may find it harder, or be more reluctant, to identify with their gender category than is the case for women (see Branscombe, 1998;Fajak & Haslam, 1998). Hence women are more likely to both perceive themselves and be perceived as more of a group, whereas men are more likely to perceive themselves and be perceived as a collection of individuals (as reported by Young, van Knippenberg, Ellemers, & de Vries, 1999; see also Cross & Madson, 1997).…”

Section: Gender and Group Size As Moderators Of Perceived Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of Gender Group Variability in Majority and Minority Contexts

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two field studies demonstrated that majority and minority size moderate perceived group variability. In Study 1 we found an outgroup homogeneity (OH) effect for female nurses in the majority, but an ingroup homogeneity (IH) effect for a 'token' minority of male nurses. In Study 2 we found similar effects in a different setting, an OH effect for policemen in the majority and an IH effect for policewomen in the minority. Although measures of visibility, status and, especially, familiarity tended to show the same pattern as perceived variability, there was no evidence that they mediated perceived dispersion. We discuss results in terms of group size, rather than gender, as moderators of perceived variability, and Kanter's (1977a, b) theory of group proportions. 3Perceptions of gender group variability in majority and minority contexts:Two field studies with nurses and police officersThe reliable tendency to perceive outgroups as less variable, or more homogeneous, than ingroups (the 'outgroup homogeneity effect'; Jones, Wood & Quattrone, 1981) has widespread consequences for stereotyping and intergroup relations (see Park, Judd & Ryan, 1991).Perceiving an outgroup as relatively homogeneous can increase the impact of categorical versus individuating information (Krueger & Rothbart, 1988), the likelihood that perceivers judge specific individuals in a stereotypic manner (Ryan, Judd, & Park, 1996), and the recall advantage of stereotype-congruent information (Pendry & Macrae, 1999). By affecting these processes, perceived homogeneity tends to enhance stereotype maintenance (Hewstone & Hamberger, 2000) and may promote intergroup bias (Wilder, 1978).Despite the profusion of laboratory studies of perceived variability (for reviews, see Devos, Comby & Deschamps, 1996;Linville, 1998;Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992;Voci, 2000), there have been relatively few field studies using natural groups. It is, however, important that we continue to study such phenomena outside the laboratory, because natural groups pose fascinating questions, the answers to which ultimately enrich our theories. Yet, the use of natural groups frequently brings with it unavoidable confounds (as between group size, status and power; see Farley, 1982), which limit our ability to draw precise conclusions from them. Brown and Smith (1989) investigated men and women academics' perceptions of their gender ingroup and outgroup in their university, where women were in a very small numerical minority, and had low status compared with men. They found that both participant groups rated the female minority more homogeneous than the male majority (i.e., the women rated their ingroup more homogeneous than the outgroup, whereas the men rated their ingroup more heterogeneous than the outgroup). Brown and Smith concluded that academic men, the majority, showed an outgroup homogeneity, or OH, effect, whereas academic women, the minority, showed an opposite, ingroup homogeneity, or IH, effect (Smith & Brown, 1987).

show abstract

“…For the same reason, men may find it harder, or be more reluctant, to identify with their gender category than women do (Branscombe 1998;Fajak and Haslam 1998). The major weakness of the status account, however, is that Lorenzi-Cioldi (1998) has consistently reported null effects in his own research using a direct measure of status (a result he attributes to social desirability concerns).…”

Section: Gender and Perceived Variabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Majority, Minority, and Parity: Effects of Gender and Group Size on Perceived Group Variability

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S ociologists and social psychologists have long been intrigued by the effects of group proportions on social life. Notably, Kanter (1977a, b) drew attention to phenomena associated with being a small minority of women among a large majority of men. In this paper, we explore such effects in relation to variability within social groups, which constitute a core component of social stereotyping. We consider the full range of majority, minority, and parity numerical relations involving gender groups, studied as natural phenomena in the form of college majors.The out-group homogeneity effect, defined as the tendency to perceive an outWe investigated the effects of gender and group size on perceptions of group variability, using groups of students taking different majors that varied in the proportion of men and women (female-majority, parity, and male-majority). We found that both group size and gender had consistent effects on perceived out-group variability, even when potentially confounded alternative explanations were assessed. Men showed a stronger out-group homogeneity effect than women, except when women were in the majority (Studies One and Two), and women showed no in-group homogeneity effect. There was an association between outgroup homogeneity and the tendency to generate more subgroups for the in-group than outgroup (Study Two), but perceived variability was not associated with familiarity, distinctiveness, perceived group size, or perceived group status. These consistent effects qualify the conclusions of prior research in important ways, and cannot be explained in terms of differences in stereotype accuracy (Study Three), or a confound between the gender majority of a major and its perceived status (Study Four). We discuss our findings in terms of theoretical explanations for gender and size effects on out-group homogeneity, and methodological considerations. 114We are grateful to Stefania Paolini and Hazel Willis for help with this research. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alberto Voci,

show abstract

Gender solidarity in hierarchical organizations

Cited by 27 publications

References 14 publications

Gender‐typing of leadership: Evaluations of real and ideal managers

Gender‐typing of leadership: Evaluations of real and ideal managers

Perceptions of Gender Group Variability in Majority and Minority Contexts

Majority, Minority, and Parity: Effects of Gender and Group Size on Perceived Group Variability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About