Think manager, think male? Heterosexuals’ stereotypes of gay and lesbian managers

Abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to extend the "think manager, think male" research paradigm by examining managerial stereotypes as a function of both gender and sexual orientation, thus comparing the similarity of managerial stereotypes against the stereotypes of male (heterosexual and gay) and female (heterosexual and lesbian) managers. Design/methodology/approach -In total, 163 heterosexual participants used the 92-item Descriptive Index attribute inventory to rate one of five target groups: successful managers, heterosexual male managers, heterosexual female managers, gay male managers, and lesbian female managers. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the degree of correspondence between ratings of the target groups. Findings -The findings showed a higher correspondence between the descriptions of heterosexual male or female managers and the successful manager prototype than between the descriptions of gay male managers and the successful manager prototype. Additionally, results showed that the stereotypes of lesbian female managers were seen as having a moderate level of fit with the successful manager prototype. Practical implications -The results of this study suggest that heterosexuals' beliefs about gay male and lesbian female managers' abilities are important. In particular, heterosexuals' stereotypes that gay males lack the qualities of being a successful manager can limit gay men's access to positions with managerial responsibilities and impede their progress into leadership positions. Originality/value -This study addresses a critical gap in the management literature as it is the first empirical investigation to assess whether the "think manager, think male" phenomenon holds for managers who are members of sexual minority groups.

Think leader, think heterosexual male? The perceived leadership effectiveness of gay male leaders

“…In an experimental study, Liberman and Golom (2015) found that gay male leaders were seen to be less similar to the successful manager prototype than were heterosexual male or heterosexual female managers. Furthermore, lesbian leaders were thought to be moderately similar to the successful manager prototype.…”

“…Furthermore, lesbian leaders were thought to be moderately similar to the successful manager prototype. Although this in an important study in an underdeveloped area, Liberman and Golom (2015) did not assess the perceived leadership effectiveness of the gay and lesbian leaders, nor did they measure the homonegativity of the participants. Perceived leadership effectiveness is important because it provides a theoretically and practically important dimension upon which gay and lesbian leaders could be evaluated differently from their heterosexual counterparts.…”

When leaders are not who they appear: The effects of leader disclosure of a concealable stigma on follower reactions

“…These negative perceptions of transgender people would seem to be incompatible with the leader prototype held by followers. Some indirect empirical evidence for this assertion comes from Liberman and Golom () who found that other stigmatized sexual minorities who are thought to have some of these same characteristics (gay men and lesbian women) were considered to be less prototypical of the “successful manager” than heterosexual men and women. As a result, we would expect that leaders disclosing a transgender identity would be evaluated less favorably than leaders who do not disclose a transgender identity.…”

“…For example, the disclosure of one's LGBT identity by one coworker to another coworker is likely to elicit different reactions than the disclosure of that same identity by a supervisor to a subordinate. One reason for this is that the stigma associated with LGBT identities may be incompatible with the normative expectations of the stigma holder's other roles and identities (Hoyt & Chemers, ; Liberman & Golom, ). Given the importance of understanding this process for stigma holders, nonstigma holders, and organizations there have been calls in the literature for more research in this area (Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson, ; Kulik et al, ; Sawyer, Thoroughgood, & Webster, ).…”

“…LGBT identities may be incompatible with the normative expectations of the stigma holder's other roles and identities (Hoyt & Chemers, 2008;Liberman & Golom, 2015). Given the importance of understanding this process for stigma holders, nonstigma holders, and organizations there have been calls in the literature for more research in this area (Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson, 2010;Kulik et al, 2008;Sawyer, Thoroughgood, & Webster, 2016).…”