Sex and gender differences in leadership

Sex and gender differences in leadership have been studied from a variety of perspectives, including personality traits, sex and gender roles, and intersectional identities, to name a few. Scholars from fields such as leadership studies, management, psychology, and sociology have taken interest. The terms sex and gender, and their definitions, have been used inconsistently and sometimes interchangeably in the leadership and management fields, leading to some confusion. Most scholarship has explored topics relating to women and leadership, rather than to men, intersex people, or transgender or non-binary people. ^[1]

Scholars have noted the importance of understanding women’s leadership because research has shown that while women are less likely to emerge as leaders than men, women have been found to be more effective in many contexts. ^[2] Significant organizational potential is lost when qualified women are underrepresented in leadership positions. ^[2] Scholars also see an ethical imperative to close the gender pay gap, reduce discrimination, overcome gender stereotypes, and improve material outcomes for all women. ^{[2] [3]}

Major topics of interest have included leadership traits, behaviors and styles, leader emergence, and leader effectiveness. Studies reveal patterns of sex and gender differences in leadership that occur as average overall effects, with overlap between men and women. A variety of situational, cultural, and individual variables affect the results of studies, as do time periods, which makes it difficult to summarize overall differences. Stereotypes about men and women can make it difficult to determine actual versus perceived differences. ^[4] Sex and gender discrimination against women, ^[4] stigma toward nonbinary and trans people, ^{[5] [6] [7] [8]} and simplification of men and masculinities ^[9] play large roles in shaping perceptions of leadership and gender, as well as in leaders' internal conceptions of themselves. Academic research has focused on Western models of leadership ^[10] using English-speaking participants, ^[11] which has greatly limited understanding. Scholars have charted several research agendas for further investigation into barriers to women’s leadership; cultural differences; and the effect of virtual work environments, as well as expanding study of gender to include trans, nonbinary, and men’s leadership. ^{[12] [13] [14]}

Underrepresentation of women leaders

Women are underrepresented in leadership positions. Studies over the past twenty years show that as one looks higher in management hierarchies, the proportion of women decreases, especially in private-sector jobs. ^[15] A 2022 study by LeanIn and McKinsey & Company, which surveyed over 40,000 employers, found that 60% of managers and 74% of C-suite executives were men. ^[16] Several studies show women “are less likely than similarly qualified men to obtain jobs with higher social and monetary rewards … and to gain access to positions of power” and earn less for equivalent work, “even after adjusting for education and preferences for full-time employment.” ^{[4] : 166} The representation and compensation of gender-diverse leaders is unknown due to lack of research.

The term glass ceiling refers to women’s restricted access to managerial levels. ^{[17] [15]} Studies suggest that sex discrimination against women leaders may best be explained by viewing relevant social systems as inherently gendered, rather than focusing individual situations and personal attributes. ^{[15] : 314–315}

The glass ceiling metaphor has led to further research into "glass walls" and "glass cliffs." Glass walls describe the unequal distribution of women and men across occupations, particularly between "line" jobs, which are central to providing organizational products and services and are dominated by men, and "staff" jobs, which are more peripheral and offer fewer opportunities for promotion. ^{[15] [17]} The glass cliff phenomenon refers to “the tendency for women to be more likely than men to be appointed to risky or precarious leadership positions, encapsulated by the phrase “think crisis—think female”. ^[18]

Scholars have explored why women remain underrepresented in leadership roles. Women continue to face a gender pay gap and often have less human capital compared to men. Although men are doing more housework and childcare than in the past, women still spend more time on these responsibilities, which can take away from their work time. ^{[3] : 106} A systematic review found that men may have access to valuable social networks that women do not, giving them valuable access to institutional knowledge, technical knowledge, and connections to decision makers. Culturally and linguistically-diverse women leaders face additional barriers to success and receive less support for career development. ^[19]

Policy makers and the general public sometimes suggest gender underrepresentation is determined by women’s preferences. ^[20] However, choice and discrimination are not mutually exclusive. Women’s preferences are shaped by cultural and social norms, gender biases of teachers and parents, and the emotional and nonverbal reactions they experience throughout adulthood. ^[20] A meta-analysis revealed no gender difference between adult men and women in similar occupations regarding their desire for leadership, promotions, or autonomy. ^[21] There are also no gender differences found in commitment to their careers or organizations. However, motherhood and corresponding steps to reduce work demands are sometimes seen as signs of low organizational commitment. ^{[2] [22]} Women report a greater desire for job flexibility. ^[3] While men are more likely to quit jobs overall, women are more likely to do so for family reasons. ^[3]

The industries, organizations, and companies where women work influence the representation of women leaders. Women face less bias in education but more in the field of law. ^[2] Women entrepreneurs tend to struggle more than men, possibly because they are more likely to decline to work long hours and are stereotyped as less willing to take risks. ^[2] Male-dominated contexts, whether at the industry or company level, also disadvantage women, due to tokenism, stereotypes about lack of fit, and exclusion from informal networks. ^[2]

Leadership opportunities and women’s representation in leadership are expanding. ^[3] The proportion of women leaders is increasing, and attitudes about women as leaders are becoming more supportive. ^[3]  In the United States, people’s attitudes toward the idea of a woman as president, willingness to work for a female boss, and women leaders in general are more positive than in the past. ^[3]  And in the Untied States as early as 2002, most adults believe men and women should have equal responsibility for childcare. ^[23] However, leadership roles still show occupational gender segregation, with women concentrated in “feminine” leadership roles such as human resources, and in “feminine” sectors like health, social work, and education. ^[24] Men, on the other hand, are “concentrated in ‘strategic’ areas like research and development, profit and loss, and operations.” ^[24] Therefore, progress in resolving the underrepresentation is women is industry-dependent.

Discrimination and Stereotypes

Women and gender-diverse leaders frequently face discrimination on their leadership journeys. Decades of research have found that women are “given less access to training, poorer performance evaluation, and fewer organizational rewards” than similarly qualified men. ^{[4] : 109} Studies also reveal high discrimination against women in more senior roles that offer higher status and wages, and “against both sexes when they applied for jobs dominated by the other sex.” ^{[3] : 108} Organizational culture and structure have been shown to create more challenges for women than men. ^{[3] : 111} Women’s typically greater domestic responsibilities, time spent away from paid work, limited networking and mentoring opportunities, and the masculine orientation of many workplace cultures create second-generation bias barriers for women.

A major factor in discrimination against women leaders is perceptions of their competence. Stereotype-based biases lead to assumptions of women’s incompetence affecting their recruitment, ^[25] selection, ^[26] and performance appraisal ^[27] and compensation decisions. Even when controlling for quality of performance, women leaders and managers receive lower evaluations than their male counterparts ^{[28] [29]} Unless in a feminine setting, women must display “greater evidence of skill than men to be considered equally competent.” ^{[3] : 108} Studies show that women exert more influence with men when they demonstrate lower levels of competence; men are more influenced by other men than equally competent women; and men preferred to hire male over female applicants with equal or superior job qualifications. ^{[3] : 109}

Gender-diverse leaders, especially leaders of color, face transphobic discrimination, harassment, assault, barriers to advancement, non-inclusive policies, binary expectations, isolation, silencing, stigma, and microaggressions. ^{[7] [30]} African American trans men leaders often stay closeted to avoid dual discrimination based both on both their trans identities and Black male stereotypes. ^[31]

Stereotypes

Stereotypes about men, women, and leadership contribute to discrimination. ^[4] Studies within two major frameworks, Heilman’s lack of fit model and role congruity theory, provide strong evidence that people are prejudiced against women leaders because stereotypes about women do not match with those about leaders, ^{[32] [33]} especially in jobs and fields considered to be male. ^[4] Leadership is often seen as a masculine trait, especially by men, although less so in educational organizations and moderate-status leader roles. ^{[28] [34]}

Heilman's lack of fit model explains how descriptive stereotypes about women influence perceptions about their leadership. ^[4] Motherhood status and physical attractiveness increase perceptions of women's incompetence. In contexts where women are rare, stereotypes are amplified, making it less likely for women to be selected for opportunities or promoted.

In fields stereotyped as male, such as upper-level management, the military, STEM fields, and entrepreneurship, women are seen as incongruent with the context and are evaluated more negatively than men. Evaluators are less likely to rate women highly when criteria are vague, such as “resilient” or “forward-thinking.” In male-dominated contexts, evaluators are also more likely to downgrade women whose performance has declined, and less likely to upgrade them when they improve. ^{[4] [27]}

Pathways from stereotypes about women to gender bias and discrimination

Figure reproduced from Heilman, Caleo, & Manzi, 2024 under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. ^[4]

Prescriptive stereotypes, on the other hand, dictate how women and men leaders should and should not behave. ^[4] For example, traits like dominance, insensitivity, ambition, assertive, and emotional displays of anger and pride are considered “off-limits for women.” At the same time, women are penalized for not engaging in stereotypical feminine behaviors like care, altruism and agreeableness. ^{[4] : 177–178}

Women who defy these prescriptive stereotypes face several disadvantages, including lower chances of recruitment, less favorable negotiation outcomes, diminished influence, limited access to social networks, and worse salary recommendations. Additionally, women are penalized simply for being successful in fields that are not traditionally associated with their gender. ^{[4] : 177}

Stereotypes have also been studied within a framework of agency and communion. The agency and communion model is widely used and validated, and seems to apply across different cultures. ^{[35] [4]} Agency includes qualities like task orientation, goal achievement, assertiveness, and dominance. Communion is said to encompass kindness, warmth, helpfulness, concern for others, and building relationships. ^{[3] [4]}

Research has shown that people associate agentic traits most readily with male leaders. ^{[36] [3] : 108} Successful managers are often believed to have more agentic than communal qualities. ^[32] When women take charge and act with agency, followers may resist them because they are seen as lacking communion. ^{[32] [33]} Discrimination against women who lack communion is more severe in male-dominated domains. In these fields, highly successful women are judged to have less desirable personalities than men in the same occupation. ^{[3] : 109}

Women leaders face a double bind. They must “balance the demand for agency required of the leader role and the demand for communion required of the female role.” ^{[3] : 109} Highly communal leaders may be criticized for not being agentic enough, while “highly agentic female leaders may be criticized for lacking communion.” ^{[3] : 108}. Despite the increasing value placed on communal leadership behaviors, women are often advised to “retain elements of a masculine leadership style” in order to match stereotypes about leaders. ^[34]

Researchers have found that both men and women face negative leadership stereotypes. Men are stereotyped as being arrogant, aggressive, egotistical, and controlling for men, while women are judged to be passive, insecure, compliant, and impressionable. ^{[4] : 168} Women who are seen as self-promoting are seen as less deserving of recognition and are less influential and likeable. ^{[4] : 178} However, if a woman's success can be attributed to external factors, such as an accident, following someone else's suggestion, or providing a communal justification, the penalty for violating gender norms is reduced. ^{[4] : 168}

Patterns of discrimination against women leaders are changing as ideas about leadership evolve to become more communal, collaborative, and relationship-oriented. ^{[3] : 113}. Modern leadership now often includes democratic relationships, participatory decision-making, delegation, and team-based skills, which are seen as less masculine. The stereotype of leadership as masculine has also decreased over time, especially among male research participants. ^[34]

Women's personalities have become more aligned with leadership traits like assertiveness and dominance. ^[37] By 2000, women's desire for authority began to match that of men. ^[21]  Research also shows an increase in the belief that men and women have equal competence. ^[38]  However, perceptions of women's agency are slower to change, with studies showing increased recognition of women's communal traits but not their agency.

Stereotypes about male leaders have been less frequently researched. Leadership scholars have begun engaging with gender studies to explore different kinds of masculinity, rather than assuming a universal construct of manhood. They are also paying more attention to how masculinity intersects with race and other social identities in leadership contexts, which often reveals stereotypes about male leaders. ^[9]

Trans and nonbinary leaders whose gender is accepted by others are likely to face that gender’s stereotypes. ^[30] Predominantly female work spaces are more welcoming to trans women than male settings. ^{[39] [40]} White trans men may experience greater privilege in male-dominated environments. ^{[41] [42] [43]} but some in predominantly female environments have reported being considered patriarchal or even less intelligent. ^{[39] [42]} Gender-diverse leaders must also navigate assumptions of cis and heteronormativity, as well as stigma and marginalization, ^[44] that create stereotype-like effects.

There hasn’t been enough research with trans and non-binary leaders to describe changes in discrimination against their leadership. However, in the United States, sympathies toward gender-diverse people grow as more people personally get to know a trans or non-binary person. ^[45] Despite these signs of social progress, there are extensive legislative efforts against trans people. ^[46] Attitudes toward trans and non-binary people vary widely in other countries. ^[47]

Historiography and conceptual approaches

Academic approaches to studying sex, gender, and leadership have evolved significantly over the decades. Early influential works include Edwin I. Megargee’s 1969 article on gender difference in leader emergence, and Virginia Schein’s 1973 article “Think Manager-Think Male” on gendered stereotypes. ^[48] However, gender was hardly discussed in the 1981 and 1990 editions of what would become The BassHandbook of Leadership. ^[17]

Most research has focused on women rather than men or other genders. For instance, the 2008 edition of the BassHandbook includes a chapter titled “Women as Leaders and Followers.” ^[17] This focus on women is a response to how Western cultures have viewed and conceptualized leadership as a masculine construct, where men are assumed to be leaders. ^{[1] [34]} The civil rights and feminist movements, along with the increasing presence of women in the workforce, spurred research interest in women’s leadership. ^{[13] : 5  [48]} Scholars have recently been encouraging their fields to update definitions of sex to include people whose bodies are not “strictly female or male” or who are from cultures that do not have a binary distinction, as well as nonbinary and trans people other social identities. ^{[13] : 6–7  [1] [14]}

Before women were included in leadership studies, research primarily focused on white men in formal leadership positions, which ignored women who had less formal roles in activism, community services, and the home. ^[13] In all timeframes, corporate leaders are given the most attention. ^[49]

Most research has been conducted in Western countries with English-speaking participants. This has led to an underrepresentation of culturally and linguistically diverse women leaders in English-language literature. ^[19]  Studies often involve college students and laboratory settings, with some findings only emerging in lab contexts (Vecchio, 2002). ^[50] Results from organizational studies vary widely by industry, and many studies rely on self-report and perceptual data rather than observed behaviors. ^[50]

The study of gender and leadership frequently lacks a theoretical foundation. In a systematic review, Buss et al. found that 48% of articles did not explicitly state a theoretical perspective, and only 35% mentioned a theory specific to gender. ^[2] Leadership research has also often failed to examine gender as a lived experience and as situated within social structures. ^{[1] : 13}

A major issue in interpreting the extensive research on gender and leadership is that while individual studies may show meaningful differences, meta-analyses often find much smaller effect sizes or ambiguous and contradictory conclusions when considering gender across various contexts and research subjects. Authors of an extensive literature concluded that “a large proportion of the studies on female leadership rely on correlational data,” which means they are unable to make causal claims and are susceptible to endogeneity issues, ^[2] where the effect of one variable on another “cannot be interpreted because it includes omitted causes”. ^[51]

Recent research agendas call for addressing these gaps by incorporating findings from studies involving leaders of color, non-Western cultures, and LGBT individuals. There is no longer a consensus that sex is dimorphic ^[52] and gender is recognized as a construct that can be fluid and complex. ^{[1] : 8}. At the same time, scholars note that women’s unique experiences should continue to be a focus in leadership research, as there are still major barriers to their emergence and representation. ^[13]

The following sections will outline the main conceptual approaches scholars have used to study leadership, presented in roughly chronological order.

Trait-Based

Some research has explored differences in men’s and women’s leadership from a trait-based perspective, rooted in evolutionary psychology. ^[53] Bass summarizes the vast research from the 1970s and 1980s; scholars explored differences in men’s and women’s personalities, communication skills, cognitive skills, socioemotional skills, thinking processes, reactions to conflict and feedback, achievement orientation, self-confidence, and moral values. ^{[17] : 915}

Critics of this approach assert that traits have “low explanatory and predictive power” especially when it comes to organizational effectiveness and leader success. ^{[54] : 1088  [55]} The actions of leaders are more relevant to the question than traits they might possess. Scholars also debate the extent to which personality research findings can be generalized to non-Western cultures. ^[56] Other scholars have noted that sex is sometimes treated as a proxy for underlying variables. ^[50] While this approach has thus become less popular among scholars, it has been used in several recent studies in conjunction with the Big Five personality characteristics. ^{[53] [57]}

Sex Roles

Some researchers, not content to simply describe sex differences, began to explore the underlying nature of these differences and looked to culturally-developed sex roles for answers. In a systematic review by Buss et al. (2024), 60% of articles used this type of approach. ^[2]

In the early days of this approach, sex and gender were often used interchangeably and deemed a “fixed characteristic of an individual, rather than a socially produced structure” ^[58] even if these characteristics were caused by socialization differences rather than biological differences between men and women. Some scholars believe that both biology (e.g., hormones) as well as psychology facilitate role development and performance. ^[59]

Early research used bi-polar masculine-feminine scales, ^[60] meaning that research questions allowing an individual to possess both masculine and feminine attributes were impossible. Even after masculine-feminine scales were separated, ^[61] they still assumed that “masculine” and “feminine” were the only two gendered categories, and that one could define these categories in a way that crossed cultural identities and language.

From this approach, inequality in leadership attainment is deemed to be caused by society’s gendered social structure. Role congruity theory was developed to try to examine (among other things), gender differences in organizational contexts and which conditions evoke these differences and alter their outcomes. Despite the advances made using role congruity theory, looking to sex roles often led to interventions aimed at 'fixing the women' so they could keep up with men. ^{[62] [58]}

Scholars have criticized the approach as imposing masculine norms on women, expecting them to adopt men’s ways of leading. Also, this wave of research tended to overlook systemic factors that perpetuate gender inequality. Nevertheless, this perspective provided helpful initial insights for explaining gender disadvantage, as well as pragmatic advice for women seeking to advance. ^{[2] [58]} Some scholars distinguish between the scholarship of women’s leadership and the scholarship of women and leadership, rejecting the former as not reflective of the diverse experiences of women. Ratner, women and leadership honors the fact that all leaders are gendered and navigate social systems. ^{[1] : 22}

Androgynous leadership

An early paradigm in the study of gender and leadership used bipolar masculinity-femininity scales, which did not allow them to vary independently but forced them to act as opposites. ^[63] In 1979, the Bem Sex Role Inventory allowed respondents to rate or be rated on both dimensions, that is, to have both high masculinity and high femininity. ^[64] Still, Bem equated sex-role and biological sex. In 1996, Park proposed a model of androgynous leadership, where androgyny was defined as “the combined presence of socially valued, stereotypic, feminine and masculine characteristics." ^{[65] : 52} Park’s model continued threads from sex-role approach including that “sex-role identity is formed, influenced or changed by various factors such as social learning conditions, reinforcement, and maturational changes in thinking processes which depend on the antecedents of sex-role identity." ^{[65] : 55} For Park, masculine aligned with task orientation and feminine aligned with relations orientation. Park argued that the most effective leaders and managers will exhibit “the best qualities of both masculine and feminine leadership styles.” ^{[65] : 55} as they are able to offer a “broad repertoire of responses” in response to situational demands. ^{[65] : 56} Park urged scholars to explore combine trait-based and situational leadership approaches with future research.

Hardaker and colleagues reviewed the research that emerged and found “a growing preference for androgynous leaders," that is, for male leaders to become more communal and female leaders to become more agentic. ^{[66] : 807} A challenge for researchers using the androgynous model is that the qualities ascribed to women are shifting and expanding. Are women becoming more “androgynous” or does the model break down as scholars allow for more complexity in definitions of gender and leadership. ^[66]

Research with transgender leaders is offering additional perspective on androgynous leadership. A study with transgender leaders found they demonstrated fluency with both masculine and feminine styles and drew from behaviors learned in previous gender socializations. ^[39] As they do so, trans leaders report making trade-offs between their preferred leadership style and the risk of being misgendered if that style doesn’t align with their perceived gender. Scholars suggest that future research explore how gender-diverse leaders categorize their own behaviors according to internal gender identity as well as external gender perceptions. ^{[30] : 24}

The “Female Advantage”

In response to calls for women to ask more masculine, scholars began to investigate the positive attributes of feminine leadership behaviors and women’s leadership. The “female advantage” approach promoted the idea that femininity should “should not be eliminated, but rather, celebrated." ^[58] The approach was first promulgated in a landmark article by Alice Eagly and Linda Carli in 2003 and reviewed and re-affirmed by them in 2014. ^{[67] [68]} Advantages put forth include the ways that women’s leadership style, values and attitudes, and ethics differ from men’s in ways that support effective leadership and organizational success. Several studies have shown women to use transformational behaviors more than men. ^{[68] [69]} Scholars have also found the trait of emotional intelligence to correlate with effective leadership, and for women to exhibit this trait more strongly than men. ^[70] Research has also explored potential leadership advantages related to women’s values and attitudes, personal ethics, and found advantages for women, “at least in some contexts.” ^[67] The increasing presence of women leaders has also been shown to have positive effects on societal outcomes such as gender equality. ^[67]

Scholars share concerns with this approach. First, the use of feminine stereotypes as a basis for investigation may not lead to actual value for women leaders, may penalize them for not living up to stereotypes, and may reinforce binary gender stereotypes. Second, this approach suggests a common experience for all women, oversimplifying diverse realities. ^{[58] [71] [72]} The authors of the original model acknowledge continue to emphasize the importance of studying stereotypes in order to overcome them; for informing organizational policies and culture that “make organizations as welcoming to women as to men,” and for highlighting women’s alignment with the increasing need for change. ^{[67] : 166} Still, this approach is valuable for raising the visibility of valued qualities demonstrated by women leaders.

Gender Complexity

Recent approaches find scholars questioning the assignment of behaviors and traits to specific genders. Three recent leadership theories explore this complexity: paradoxical leadership, inclusive leadership, and intersectionality leadership. ^[58] Paradoxical leadership indicates “the most effective leadership integrates both agentic and communal behaviors,” ^{[73] [74]} which may offer more opportunities for women and gender-diverse leaders, but could also imply a greater expectation on them. ^[75] Both women and men are increasingly expected to be inclusive leaders. ^[76] Trans and non-binary leaders are often motivated to practice inclusive leadership by their own experiences with marginalization. ^[30] Intersectional leadership emphasizes the way that social identities, including gender, combine in unique ways to influence leadership. ^[77] Lines of research explore specific experiences such as Black caring male leaders ^[78] and Black women’s transformational leadership. ^{[71] [72]} For example, in North America, Asian leaders in are perceived as more “feminine” and Black leaders to be more “masculine.” ^{[79] [80] [81]} Gender and age have also been found to intersect. ^{[82] [83]} The intersection of gender and sexual orientation with leadership raises issues such as identity disclosure, stigma, group composition, and the importance of situational factors. ^[58]  Theories of gender complexity may offer richer understanding of complexity theories of leadership ^[84] as well as complexity of lived experiences. ^[58]

Contemporary leadership scholars also study men and masculinity as gender variables relevant to leadership. ^[1] Historically, men were not studied as gendered leaders, because they been so dominant—the default. Scholars have noted that male leaders demonstrate many forms of masculinity. ^[9] Studies with male leaders of color ^{[78] [85]} and gay men ^[86] have shown that default assumptions about masculine leadership don’t hold up for all other social identities. Significant research has studied how the social construction of masculinity influences “how men experience education environments and engage in leadership learning. ^[1]

Across these approaches, certain topics have proved popular with scholars, to be discussed in the following sections.

Major Areas of Study

Leadership and personality traits

Relationships between leadership, gender, and personality traits have been studied for many years, despite the concerns raised about the trait-based approach. A confounding factor is determining which traits relate to effective leadership. Topics of intense interest in the 1980s included differences in men’s and women’s communication skills, ways of thinking, emotional skills, personality, reactions to conflict and feedback, and self-confidence. ^{[17] : 915–919} Carli and Eagly summarized research findings that men demonstrate more aggression, assertiveness, dominance, and “to a very slight degree,” competitiveness, but note that successful contemporary leadership now requires abilities “to form good relationships with others, work in diverse teams, and influence and motive others to make valuable and creative contributions.” ^{[3] : 105} Offerman and Foley reported that “women as a group may have a leadership advantage in terms of enhanced extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, while having a disadvantage in their higher neuroticism.” ^[22] Carli and Eagly conclude, “neither gender has a leadership advantage in personality” ^{[3] : 105} and Shen and Joseph similarly assert that it is unclear whether men and women leaders differ in leadership-related skills. ^[12]

The leadership traits of trans and nonbinary leaders have not yet been studied directly. However, in looking at their leadership experiences, researchers have identified some common patterns in how these leaders overcome discrimination and done work to understand their identities in the context of society. Studies repeatedly find these patterns of experience create self-confidence, self-awareness, resilience, humility, and empathy in gender-diverse leaders. ^[30]

Many studies have also investigated implicit leadership theories--the traits that people think leaders should have, as well as what traits followers prefer. A longitudinal study with U.S. samples from 1994 and 2014 found that people, especially men, continue to believe masculine traits are best for leadership. ^{[34] [87]} There are signs of change, however. A longitudinal study investigated preferences of Dutch employees for masculine and feminine leadership traits at three time points (2005, 2010, 2020). ^[88] Results aligned with a previous study with two cohorts of U.S. business students (2018 and 2021) ^[89] showing preference for feminine leadership traits is increasing, while preference for masculine traits is decreasing. Masculine traits were shown as preferred overall in 2020 in the longitudinal study, however, while the study with US students found overall preference for feminine traits. Both studies concluded that the stereotype of a “good manager” is becoming less gendered. ^[88] Researchers note that the area of trait preferences is especially dominated by studies of men and women without consideration of other social identities such as race, ^[22] which, when considered, add significant nuance to people’s expectations and preferences. ^[80]

Leadership behaviors and leadership styles

Extensive research has been conducted on the differences between men’s and women’s leadership behaviors. ^[90] as well as the use of leadership styles, which are models of behavioral patterns. Paustian-Underdahl and colleagues describe the numerous methodological and theoretical challenges in researching gender and leadership behaviors and styles. ^[90]

In the 1970s and 80s, studies found that women tended to use more participative leadership styles while men were more directive. ^[17] Two major meta-analyses ^{[91] [92]} showed women leaders adopt more democratic leadership styles, are more interpersonally oriented, and use less autocratic leadership styles compared to men. ^[48]

As researchers grew more focused on the concepts of agency and communion in their study of gender and leadership, behaviors were categorized accordingly. ^[90]  Communal leadership behaviors included ethical, moral, relational, consideration, idealized influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, democratic, and participative behaviors. Agentic leadership behaviors included contingent reward, task-oriented, initiating structure, active management-by-exception, autocratic, directive leaders. Some behaviors are considered gender neutral, such as inspirational motivation, passive management-by-exception, and laissez-faire leadership. ^{[90] : Table 1} A meta-analysis found women were rated more highly than men on effective communal behaviors, and more highly than men on two agentic behaviors: contingent reward and task-oriented / initiating structure. ^[90]  Women were also rated more highly on inspirational motivation, categorized as gender-neutral. Men were rated higher than women on the gender-neutral behavior passive management-by-exception, especially in newer studies.

Meta-analyses have shown women use transformational leadership behaviors somewhat more than men. This might be because transformational leadership includes both agentic and communal behaviors, which helps reduce the role incongruity between leadership roles and female stereotypes ^{[93] [94]} Women are often rated more highly than men on idealized influence, individualized consideration, and contingent reward, These findings were replicated in a study by different authors. ^[69] men are more likely to use laissez-faire leadership and two components of transactional leadership: active management-by-exception, and passive management-by-exception. ^{[93] [94]} Although some of the effect sizes were small, effects can have significant consequences when observed and acted upon over long periods . ^{[93] : 586}

There is less evidence regarding other leadership styles. ^[12] Women tend to exhibit more charismatic leadership compared to men, even though charismatic traits are often stereotypically attributed to men. ^[95] Women are also expected to show higher levels of servant leadership (Beck, 2014; Hogue, 2016), and those who use this style tend to have better effects on performance outcomes than men. ^[96] Paradoxical leadership, which combines different gendered aspects, provides more opportunities to women. ^{[74] [73] [2]} Men rated themselves as higher on destructive leadership behaviors and Machiavellian traits than women. ^[97] Abusive supervision is seen as less typical among women, and such behaviors are less often attributed women’s internal characteristics. ^[98]

Some leadership styles have received almost no attention that reviewers suggest are worthy of study from a gender perspective: Instrumental Leadership, inclusive leadership, intersectionality leadership, and virtual work leadership. ^[58]

Several studies have examined the leadership styles of trans and nonbinary leaders, specifically androgynous, ^[39] authentic, ^[39] synergistic, ^[43] and transformational leadership. ^[99] Leaders who transition genders mid-career often draw from previous gender socializations and may practice androgynous leadership. ^{[39] [42] [100]} However, they may need to balance their preferred style with the risk of being misgendered due to stereotypes. ^[30] Trans and nonbinary leaders may experience increased personal authenticity with their teams if they come out at work, but a decreased sense of leadership authenticity if their gender does not align with traditional gender binary assumptions. ^{[39] [75] [101]}

In a study on transformational leadership, Serjoie found that transgender leaders demonstrated strengths in intellectual stimulation, ^{[99] : 128–129} “emphasizing their role in challenging the status quo and inspiring alternative strategies," ^[30] as well as idealized influence behaviors, outscoring both men and women in the study.

Scholars have suggested further research on the leadership styles of gender-diverse leaders, particularly in relation to outcomes and effectiveness. ^[30] Gender-diverse leaders’ displays of empathy and follower-orientation indicate potential for exploring servant and followership leadership styles. ^[30] However, trans and nonbinary leaders do not always relate their gender to their leadership style or achievements. ^{[40] : 76}

A few studies on specific populations have found no sex differences in leadership styles or behaviors. A study of Swedish school administrators, insurance officials, and vicars found small differences in decision-making style, but no overall gender differences. ^[102] A study of German business students’ perceptions of their leaders’ transformational behaviors and found no significant differences for leader gender. ^[103] These studies illustrate the relevance of contextual factors such as organizational type and gender distribution of employees, as well as the importance of looking at behaviors rather than large theoretical constructs.

Leadership emergence

Scholars describe leader emergence as “the process through which an individual becomes influential to relevant others in a manner that involves the implicit or explicit granting of the leader role." ^[104]  Research into the emergence of women leaders has included consideration of traits and surface-level characteristics, follower attributions and perceptions, leader behaviors, and contextual factors. ^{[2] : Figure 6}

One of the earliest studies with college students found that women were less likely to emerge as leaders even when their personalities were more dominant, due to “social role conflict.” ^{[105] : 378}. A meta-analysis in 1991 found male leaders were more likely to emerge in short-term and task-oriented groups, while women emerged slightly more often than men in groups requiring social facilitation. ^[106] When considering only the most recent five years of studies, this gender gap was shown to be shrinking. Modern studies through 2020 show mixed or small gender differences in the emergence of leaders. ^[12]

Related to leadership emergence is an individual’s motivation to lead. A summary of research through 2105 reported that women across cultures and professions have a lower motivation to lead than do men. ^[107] Scholars reported similar findings for trans women college students. ^[108] The results of three studies suggest that for cis women, decreased motivation stems from traditional gender role beliefs and lack of same-sex role models, and that when women have a high awareness of gender inequality, their motivation to lead is also higher. ^[107] In 2020, a meta-analysis found that nuances of motivation matter. ^[109] While men score higher on an intrinsic desire and a feeling of duty to lead, women score higher on motivations to lead for non-selfish reasons.

Research with trans and nonbinary leaders show that their leader emergence relates to followers’ acceptance of their claims about their gender. ^{[100] [30]} Trans leaders report the attributes of their bodies affected leader emergence in a variety of ways, including their voices. While some trans men who transitioned at work note increases in privilege as they were accepted as masculine, trans women report being expected to conform to feminine norms in order to be accepted as a woman leader after transition. ^[100] Black trans man leaders noted prejudice against their skin color meant they generally stayed closeted until they could change organizations and begin anew with their new gender identity. ^[31]

Leaders who come out as a different gender mid-career may need to re-emerge as leaders ^{[43] [39] [40] [30]} as followers have a variety of actions related to disclosure of gender identity. ^[5] The leader emergence of trans and nonbinary leaders who stay closeted is hindered by anxiety and stress and leaders may adopt behaviors that don’t feel natural to them. ^[42] Trans leaders who transition fully before taking a new leadership position may deem their trans identity irrelevant to their leadership. ^[42]

Social identity theory describes barriers to leader emergence for people who do not fit in-group prototypes, ^[110] which may include trans and nonbinary people in cisnormative contexts. ^[30] Trans and nonbinary leaders have been able to leverage their skills with adaptation, situational discernment, group-oriented actions, and the “empathy, resilience, courage, and gratitude developed as part of their identity journeys” in order to form strong relational identities with their group that helped them emerge. ^[30] Gender-diverse leaders also find that gender differences matter less in gender-diverse environments ^[111] or where their identities are more prototypical of the group; for example, with activist organizations ^[41] and with inclusive churches. ^[112]

Scholars have found some traits more important for women’s leadership emergence then they are for men. ^{[2] : 6–7} The quality of resilience enables women to "overcome crises more efficiently, recover from setbacks more quickly, and adapt to changing conditions more rapidly.” ^[2] Competitiveness and achievement orientation are also correlated with women’s emergence as leaders. ^[2]

The presence of top women leaders can have a positive influence on the emergence of other women leaders in top and middle-management positions. ^[2] Top women leaders tend to create more female-friendly cultures and supportive human resource policies, and can serve as positive role models for aspiring women leaders. ^[2] Women’s mentoring, networking, and coaching of other women leaders, as well as women’s professional organizations, also supports women’s entry to leadership. ^[2] However, research has also found a phenomenon known as “queen bee,” where some women leaders may share stereotypical biases against women and legitimize gender inequality. These women prioritize their individual success and distance themselves from emerging women. ^[2]

The glass cliff phenomenon refers to “the tendency for women to be more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions that are risky and precarious” or “think crisis—think female.” ^[18] In a review of ten years of research, Ryan and colleagues found this phenomenon to be “nuanced and context-dependent,” dependent on factors such as “the ways in which organizational performance is indexed,” selection bias, gender stereotypes, and the strategic need for organizational change. ^[18] They found evidence that glass cliffs arise when a scapegoat is needed or when the issues at hand relate to people and personnel, and not when the crisis requires leaders to act as spokesperson or improve performance. Women are also deemed more suitable in a crisis when the leader will be confronting challenges alone and social resources are absent. With such variability, Ryan and colleagues concluded, “there is nothing inevitable about their occurrence and there is no sense in which they are an ineluctable product either of psychology, of biology, or for that matter business life." ^{[18] : 453} A 2024 systematic review also found that while there is a belief that women leaders are better crisis managers, findings are context-dependent and conclusive evidence about an overall effect is lacking. ^[2]

Scholars encourage future studies about women’s and gender diverse leader emergence that explore the cultivation of resilience, achievement orientation, and self-confidence. ^{[30] [2]} Studies with trans and nonbinary leaders point to the need for additional research about how coming out and gender transition processes affect leader emergence, as well as the development of strategies to overcome barriers identified by social-identity theory, such as stigma and in-group bias.

Leader Effectiveness

Scholars have investigated differences in men’s and women’s leader effectiveness from a variety of conceptual approaches, including performance evaluations, leadership styles, financial performance of firms, and other business outcomes. The approach and specific research questions matter a great deal, as meta analyses ^[113] and reviews ^[12] that look across unalike studies have mixed findings concerning effectiveness differences, depending on context and recency.

A 2014 meta-analysis of 99 studies from 1960 to 2011 found that men are seen as more effective in the oldest studies, and women are seen as more effective between 1982 and 2011. Evaluations by other people find that women are more effective leaders than men, especially in business and educational contexts and at mid-level and upper-level positions. Men are rated by others to be more effective in government organizations. On self-evaluations, men rate themselves more effective than women rate themselves. While studies conducted in laboratory settings show no significant differences between men’s and women’s leadership effectiveness, studies conducted in organizational settings suggest women are more effective. ^{[113] : Table 2}

Other research on leader effectiveness is linked to leadership styles, which in turn are linked to particular organizational conditions for success. Three meta-analyses showed that transformational leadership correlated strongly with effectiveness. ^{[114] [115] [116]} The transformational leadership style and key behaviors were also shown to be more frequently used by women than men, indicating that women may have an effectiveness advantage. ^[3]

Another way to evaluate effectiveness is financial performance, though studies of this kind are usually correlational in nature. For example, a 2015 report from the Conference Board showed that “Organizations in the top 20 percent of financial performance counted 37 percent of their leaders as women; among organizations in the bottom 20 percent, only 19 percent of leaders were women.” ^[117] Results also differ depending on the measure used for firm performance. ^[118]

A meta-analysis ^[118] found that sales performance correlates with the presence of women leaders, perhaps because “sales- and growth-focused organizations may be more open to non–status quo ideas and diverse persons compared to other types of organizations.” ^[22]

U.S. organizations with more women on boards of directors or in executive positions have been shown to have better financial outcomes. ^{[3] : 111} Similar findings were shown in a study of European companies. ^[119] A widely-cited 2004 study by Catalyst found that companies with the highest representation of women on corporate boards reported better financial performance on return on equity and total return to shareholders. Scholars note that these types of studies are correlational and could indicate something about the organizations rather than the current leader; for example, perhaps companies who are “progressive enough to be promoting women into their top management teams” have an edge in selecting overall talent. ^[22]

For some companies, socially responsible business practices are a primary indicator of their success. A meta-analysis across 87 independent samples and found that women have an advantage in socially responsible business practices and maintaining social reputation, especially in internationally operating organizations. ^[120]

A 2024 literature review found no research directly investigating the effectiveness of trans or nonbinary leaders. ^[30] However, there have been a few studies on the effectiveness of lesbian and gay leaders and interactions with gender. ^{[121] [122] [123]}

Gaps and Future Research

Researchers have identified several areas where more studies are needed. They suggest investigating how factors like age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and life stage interact with women's leadership. ^{[104] [124] [2] [118] [34]} Additionally, there is a call for research from a cross-cultural perspective. ^{[2] [50]}

It's important to continue focusing on the barriers to women's leadership. ^[125] This includes understanding behaviors that help women avoid backlash for defying stereotypes. ^[2] Studies should also explore what organizations can do to mitigate the effects of the unequal distributions of family and domestic responsibilities among women leaders and their spouses. ^[2]

Scholars are advocating for new theoretical approaches. ^[118] They recommend using more gender-inclusive methods that consider the less masculine paradigms of emotional, sensory, and reflexive dynamics. ^[58] Researchers are encouraged to challenge the labelling of characteristics as masculine and feminine. ^{[13] [126] [127]}  There is also strong interest in studying critical masculinities in leadership, including diverse masculinities, power dynamics caring masculinity, and men’s roles as allies for gender equality in leadership. ^{[58] [13] [9] [128]}

Future research should examine gender differences in leadership of virtual work settings, noting that women have been shown to have more positive attitudes toward using technology to communicate with coworkers, which aligns with participative leadership and socially-oriented communication. ^[22] Social media and other online technologies can also facilitate informal leadership roles which intersect with gender-related behaviors such as interpersonal communication and community focused actions. ^[58]

References

1. Haber-Curran, Paige; Beatty, Cameron (2023). "Critical theoretical perspectives and considerations for centering gender in the study of leadership". In Tan, Sherylle J.; DeFrank-Cole, Lisa (eds.). A research agenda for gender and leadership. Edward Elgar. pp. 13–28.
2. Buss, Martin; Andler, Sophie; Tiberius, Victor (December 2024). "Female leadership: An integrative review and research framework". The Leadership Quarterly: 101858. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101858.
3. Carli, Linda L.; Eagly, Alice (2011). "Gender and Leadership". In Bryman, Alan; Collinson, David L.; Grint, Keith; Jackson, Brad; Uhl-Bien, Mary (eds.). SAGE Handbook of Gender and Leadership. Sage. pp. 103–117. ISBN   978-1848601468.
4. Heilman, Madeline E.; Caleo, Suzette; Manzi, Francesca (2024-01-22). "Women at Work: Pathways from Gender Stereotypes to Gender Bias and Discrimination". Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 11 (1): 165–192. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105. ISSN   2327-0608.
5. Adams, Gary A.; Webster, Jennica R. (2017). "When leaders are not who they appear: The effects of leader disclosure of a concealable stigma on follower reactions". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 47 (12): 649–664. doi:10.1111/jasp.12467. ISSN   0021-9029.
6. Davidson, Skylar (2016). Halsall, Jamie (ed.). "Gender inequality: Nonbinary transgender people in the workplace". Cogent Social Sciences. 2. doi:10.1080/23311886.2016.1236511.
7. Köllen, Thomas; Rumens, Nick (2022-01-01). "Challenging cisnormativity, gender binarism and sex binarism in management research: foregrounding the workplace experiences of trans* and intersex people". Gender in Management: An International Journal. 37 (6): 701–715. doi:10.1108/GM-01-2022-0022. ISSN   1754-2413.
8. Mizock, Lauren; Riley, Julie; Yuen, Nelly; Woodrum, T. Dawson; Sotilleo, Erica A.; Ormerod, Alayne J. (2018). "Transphobia in the workplace: A qualitative study of employment stigma". Stigma and Health. 3 (3): 275–282. doi:10.1037/sah0000098. ISSN   2376-6964.
9. Collinson, David; Aavik, Kadri; Hearn, Jeff; Thym, Anika (10 March 2023). "Men, masculinities, and leadership: emerging issues". A Research Agenda for Gender and Leadership: 87–106. doi:10.4337/9781800883826.00010. ISBN   978-1-80088-382-6.
10. Atwater, Leanne; Yu, Jia; Tawse, Alex; Fields, Lauren H.; McFarren, Jeffrey A.; Nae, Eun Young (June 2021). "Relevance of culture in studies of leadership: ignored or dismissed?". Asia Pacific Journal of Management. 38 (2): 687–708. doi:10.1007/s10490-019-09678-w. ISSN   0217-4561.
11. Schedlitzki, Doris; Ahonen, Pasi; Wankhade, Paresh; Edwards, Gareth; Gaggiotti, Hugo (April 2017). "Working with Language: A Refocused Research Agenda for Cultural Leadership Studies". International Journal of Management Reviews. 19 (2): 237–257. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12100. ISSN   1460-8545.
12. Shen, Winny; Joseph, Dana L. (June 2021). "Gender and leadership: A criterion-focused review and research agenda". Human Resource Management Review. 31 (2): 100765. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2020.100765.
13. Tan, Sherylle J.; DeFrank-Cole, Lisa (2023). A research agenda for gender and leadership. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN   978-1-80088-382-6.
14. Eagly, Alice H.; Heilman, Madeline E. (June 2016). "Gender and leadership: Introduction to the special issue". The Leadership Quarterly. 27 (3): 349–353. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.04.002.
15. Powell, Gary N.; Butterfield, D. Anthony (7 December 2015). "The glass ceiling: what have we learned 20 years on?". Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance. 2 (4): 306–326. doi:10.1108/JOEPP-09-2015-0032.
16. McKinsey & Company; LeanIn (2022). "Women in the Workplace 2022" (PDF).
17. Bass, Bernard M.; Bass, Ruth; Bass, Bernard M. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications (4 ed.). New York: Free Press. ISBN   978-0-7432-1552-7. OCLC   148740433.
18. Ryan, Michelle K.; Haslam, S. Alexander; Morgenroth, Thekla; Rink, Floor; Stoker, Janka; Peters, Kim (June 2016). "Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact". The Leadership Quarterly. 27 (3): 446–455. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008. hdl: 10871/20228 .
19. Corpuz, Ember; Due, Clemence; Augoustinos, Martha (December 2020). "Caught in two worlds: A critical review of culture and gender in the leadership literature". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 14 (12): 1–14. doi:10.1111/spc3.12571.
20. Frear, Katherine A.; Paustian-Underdahl, Samantha C.; Heggestad, Eric D.; Walker, Lisa Slattery (May 2019). "Gender and career success: A typology and analysis of dual paradigms". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 40 (4): 400–416. doi:10.1002/job.2338.
21. Konrad, Alison M.; Ritchie, J. Edgar; Lieb, Pamela; Corrigall, Elizabeth (2000). "Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 126 (4): 593–641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.4.593. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   10900998.
22. Offermann, Lynn R.; Foley, Kira (28 February 2020). "Is There a Female Leadership Advantage?". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.61. ISBN   978-0-19-022485-1.
23. Milkie, Melissa A.; Bianchi, Suzanne M.; Mattingly, Marybeth J.; Robinson, John P. (2002). "[No title found]". Sex Roles. 47 (1/2): 21–38. doi:10.1023/A:1020627602889.
24. Eagly, Alice. "Women’s Access to Leadership Has Improved but Gender Has Reasserted Itself in the Gender Segregation of these Roles." Presentation to the International Leadership Association, Chicago: November 8, 2024.
25. Gaucher, Danielle; Friesen, Justin; Kay, Aaron C. (2011). "Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (1): 109–128. doi:10.1037/a0022530. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   21381851.
26. Madera, Juan M.; Hebl, Michelle R.; Martin, Randi C. (November 2009). "Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 94 (6): 1591–1599. doi:10.1037/a0016539. PMID   19916666.
27. Heilman, Madeline E.; Manzi, Francesca; Caleo, Suzette (1 May 2019). "Updating impressions: The differential effects of new performance information on evaluations of women and men" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 152: 105–121. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.03.010.
28. Eagly, Alice H.; Makhijani, Mona G.; Klonsky, Bruce G. (January 1992). "Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 111 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3.
29. Heilman, Madeline; Block, Caryn J.; Martell, Richard F. (1995). "Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?". Journal of Social Behavior & Personality. 10 (6): 237–252.
30. Talis, Galen J. (August 2024). "Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Leaders and Leadership: A Foundational and Integrative Review". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2024. doi:10.5465/amproc.2024.12100abstract.
31. Shakespeare, Sharon. D. (2017). Gender Castaways: A Hermeneutic Phenomenological Study About African American Transmen and Organizational Culture (PhD thesis). University of Phoenix. ProQuest   2038413998.
32. Eagly, Alice H.; Karau, Steven J. (2002). "Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders" (PDF). Psychological Review. 109 (3): 573–598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573. PMID   12088246.
33. Heilman, Madeline E. (2001). "Description and Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent Women's Ascent Up the Organizational Ladder" (PDF). Journal of Social Issues. 57 (4): 657–674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234.
34. Koenig, Anne M.; Eagly, Alice H.; Mitchell, Abigail A.; Ristikari, Tiina (July 2011). "Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms". Psychological Bulletin. 137 (4): 616–642. doi:10.1037/a0023557. PMID   21639606. S2CID   5697796.
35. Abele, Andrea E.; Uchronski, Mirjam; Suitner, Caterina; Wojciszke, Bogdan (2008). "Towards an operationalization of the fundamental dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of word occurrence". European Journal of Social Psychology. 38 (7): 1202–1217. doi:10.1002/ejsp.575.
36. Scott, Kristyn A.; Brown, Douglas J.; Suitner, Caterina; Wojciszke, Bogdan (1 November 2006). "Female first, leader second? Gender bias in the encoding of leadership behavior" (PDF). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 101 (2): 230–242. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.002.
37. Twenge, Jean M. (2001). "Changes in women's assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross-temporal meta-analysis, 1931–1993". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (1): 133–145. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.133. PMID   11474719.
38. Eagly, Alice H.; Nater, Christa; Miller, David I.; Kaufmann, Michèle; Sczesny, Sabine (April 2020). "Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018". American Psychologist. 75 (3): 301–315. doi:10.1037/amp0000494.
39. Musick, Silas M. (2018). Androgynous Leadership Style as Performed by Queer Leaders (Master of Arts thesis). University of Colorado Colorado Springs. ProQuest   2159041909 . Retrieved 16 January 2025.
40. Schueler, Jennifer Felton (2021). Transgender Organizational Leaders in the Workplace: A Generic Qualitative Investigation (PhD thesis). Capella University. ProQuest   2582992038.
41. Alimchandani, Anjali (2015). An exploration of community-level agency among transgender and gender nonconforming people of color (PhD thesis). New York University. ISBN   9781339442174. ProQuest   1762741069.
42. Brewer, Ethan W. (2016). The social expectations of masculinity and female-to-male transgender leaders: A heuristic study (PhD thesis). The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. ProQuest   1746941819 . Retrieved 16 January 2025.
43. Bruce, Rachel L. (2022). Authentic truth at work: A case study of the lived professional experiences of a transgender educational leader through the lens of the synergistic leadership theory (EdD thesis). The University of Nebraska - Lincoln. ISBN   9798841725763.
44. Fassinger, Ruth E.; Shullman, Sandra L.; Stevenson, Michael R. (2010). "Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm". American Psychologist. 65 (3): 201–215. doi:10.1037/a0018597. PMID   20350019.
45. Todaro, Rob (11 October 2023). "Personally Knowing a Transgender Person Correlates With Increased Sympathy for Transgender People and Support for LGBTQ+ Issues". Data For Progress. Retrieved 16 January 2025.
46. Trans Legislation Tracker. "Tracking the Rise of Anti-Trans Bills in the U.S." Retrieved 16 January 2025.
47. "LGBT+ Pride 2024" (PDF). Ipsos Knowledge Centre.
48. Lord, Robert G.; Day, David V.; Zaccaro, Stephen J.; Avolio, Bruce J.; Eagly, Alice H. (2017). "Leadership in applied psychology: Three waves of theory and research" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 102 (3): 434–451. doi:10.1037/apl0000089.
49. Powell, Gary N. (2014). "Sex, Gender, and Leadership: What Do Four Decades of Research Tell Us?'". In Kumra, Savita; Simpson, Ruth; Burke, Ronald J. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organizations. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199658213.013.011.
50. Vecchio, Robert P (December 2002). "Leadership and gender advantage". The Leadership Quarterly. 13 (6): 643–671. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00156-X.
51. Antonakis, John; Bendahan, Samuel; Jacquart, Philippe; Lalive, Rafael (December 2010). "On making causal claims: A review and recommendations". The Leadership Quarterly. 21 (6): 1086–1120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010.
52. Blackless, Melanie; Charuvastra, Anthony; Derryck, Amanda; Fausto-Sterling, Anne; Lauzanne, Karl; Lee, Ellen (March 2000). "How sexually dimorphic are we? Review and synthesis". American Journal of Human Biology. 12 (2): 151–166. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2<151::AID-AJHB1>3.0.CO;2-F. PMID   11534012.
53. Judge, Timothy A.; Piccolo, Ronald F.; Kosalka, Tomek (December 2009). "The bright and dark sides of leader traits: A review and theoretical extension of the leader trait paradigm". The Leadership Quarterly. 20 (6): 855–875. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.004.
54. Andersen, Jon Aarum (1 December 2006). "Leadership, personality and effectiveness" (PDF). The Journal of Socio-Economics. 35 (6): 1078–1091. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.066.
55. Murphy, Kevin R.; Dzieweczynski, J. L. (1 October 2005). "Why Don't Measures of Broad Dimensions of Personality Perform Better As Predictors of Job Performance?". Human Performance. 18 (4): 343–357. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1804_2.
56. Zeinoun, Pia; Daouk-Öyry, Lina; Choueiri, Lina; van de Vijver, Fons J. R. (September 2017). "A mixed-methods study of personality conceptions in the Levant: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 113 (3): 453–465. doi:10.1037/pspp0000148.
57. Sackett, Paul R.; Lievens, Filip; Van Iddekinge, Chad H.; Kuncel, Nathan R. (March 2017). "Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research". Journal of Applied Psychology. 102 (3): 254–273. doi:10.1037/apl0000151. PMID   28150988. S2CID   32208569.
58. Kark, Ronit; Buengeler, Claudia (August 2024). "Wo∼Men and Leadership: Re-Thinking the State of Research on Gender and Leadership Through Waves of Feminist Thinking". Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies. 31 (3): 245–266. doi: 10.1177/15480518241257105 .
59. Eagly, Alice H.; Wood, Wendy (2012). "Social Role Theory". Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: 458–476. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n49. ISBN   978-0-85702-961-4.
60. Shinar, Eva H. (October 1978). "Person perception as a function of occupation and sex". Sex Roles. 4 (5): 679–693. doi:10.1007/BF00287332.
61. Bem, Sandra Lipsitz (1979). "Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (6): 1047–1054. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.1047.
62. Ely, Robin J.; Meyerson, Debra E. (1 January 2000). "Theories of Gender in Organizations: A New Approach to Organizational Analysis and Change1" (PDF). Research in Organizational Behavior. 22: 103–151. doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22004-2.
63. Shinar, Eva H (August 1975). "Sexual stereotypes of occupations". Journal of Vocational Behavior. 7 (1): 99–111. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(75)90037-8.
64. Bem, Sandra Lipsitz (1979). "Theory and measurement of androgyny: A reply to the Pedhazur-Tetenbaum and Locksley-Colten critiques". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (6): 1047–1054. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.1047.
65. Park, Daewoo (July 1996). "Sex-Role Identity and Leadership Style: Looking for an Androgynous Leadership Style". Journal of Leadership Studies. 3 (3): 49–59. doi:10.1177/107179199700300306.
66. Hardaker, Julie; Dyer, Suzette; Hurd, Fiona; Harcourt, Mark (21 June 2023). ""They expect me to be caring": the challenges of claiming an androgynous leadership approach" (PDF). Gender in Management: An International Journal. 38 (6): 804–820. doi:10.1108/GM-07-2021-0187.
67. Eagly, Alice; Gartzia, Leire; Carli, Linda (16 December 2013). "Female Advantage". In Kumra, Savita; Simpson, Ruth; Burke, Ronald J. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Gender in Organizations. pp. 153–174. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199658213.013.005.
68. Eagly, Alice H; Carli, Linda L (December 2003). "The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence" (PDF). The Leadership Quarterly. 14 (6): 807–834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004.
69. Antonakis, John; Avolio, Bruce J; Sivasubramaniam, Nagaraj (June 2003). "Context and leadership: an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire". The Leadership Quarterly. 14 (3): 261–295. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4.
70. Joseph, Dana L.; Newman, Daniel A. (January 2010). "Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 95 (1): 54–78. doi:10.1037/a0017286. PMID   20085406.
71. Parker, Patricia S.; dt, ogilvie (1 June 1996). "Gender, culture, and leadership: Toward a culturally distinct model of African-American women executives' leadership strategies". The Leadership Quarterly. 7 (2): 189–214. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90040-5.
72. Parker, Patricia Sue (2005). Race, gender, and leadership: re-envisioning organizational leadership from the perspectives of African American women executives. Mahwah, NJ London: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN   978-0-8058-4919-6.
73. Zheng, Wei; Surgevil, Olca; Kark, Ronit (December 2018). "Dancing on the Razor's Edge: How Top-Level Women Leaders Manage the Paradoxical Tensions between Agency and Communion" (PDF). Sex Roles. 79 (11–12): 633–650. doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0908-6.
74. Zheng, Wei; Kark, Ronit; Meister, Alyson L. (October 2018). "Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion". The Leadership Quarterly. 29 (5): 584–596. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.04.001.
75. Hamilton-Page, Michelle (2021). Unbound Leadership: How Gender Non-conforming, or Non-binary Lesbians Navigate the Workplace from a Place of Visibility (PhD thesis). Royal Roads University. ProQuest   2572543259.
76. Kelan, Elisabeth K. (September 2020). "The Inclusive Leader, the Smart Strategist and the Forced Altruist: Subject Positions for Men as Gender Equality Partners" (PDF). European Management Review. 17 (3): 603–613. doi:10.1111/emre.12372.
77. Sim, Eunbii; Bierema, Laura (29 October 2024). "A Systematic Literature Review of Intersectional Leadership in the Workplace: The Landscape and Framework for Future Leadership Research and Practice to Challenge Interlocking Systems of Oppression". Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies: 15480518241292214. doi:10.1177/15480518241292214. ISSN   1548-0518.
78. Bass, Lisa R. (August 2020). "Black Male Leaders Care Too: An Introduction to Black Masculine Caring in Educational Leadership". Educational Administration Quarterly. 56 (3): 353–395. doi:10.1177/0013161X19840402.
79. Galinsky, Adam D.; Hall, Erika V.; Cuddy, Amy J. C. (April 2013). "Gendered Races: Implications for Interracial Marriage, Leadership Selection, and Athletic Participation" (PDF). Psychological Science. 24 (4): 498–506. doi:10.1177/0956797612457783. PMID   23474830.
80. Rosette, Ashleigh Shelby; Koval, Christy Zhou; Ma, Anyi; Livingston, Robert (June 2016). "Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties" (PDF). The Leadership Quarterly. 27 (3): 429–445. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008.
81. Schug, Joanna; Alt, Nicholas P.; Klauer, Karl Christoph (January 2015). "Gendered race prototypes: Evidence for the non-prototypicality of Asian men and Black women" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 56: 121–125. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2014.09.012.
82. Daldrop, Christoph; Buengeler, Claudia; Homan, Astrid C. (16 August 2023). "An intersectional lens on young leaders: bias toward young women and young men in leadership positions". Frontiers in Psychology. 14. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1204547 . PMC   10468608 . PMID   37663338.
83. Pfrombeck, Julian; Galinsky, Adam (August 2024). "Employee Feedback Acceptance: Roadblocks at the Intersection of Leader Gender and Relative Age". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2024 (1). doi:10.5465/AMPROC.2024.14628abstract.
84. Uhl-Bien, Mary; Marion, Russ; McKelvey, Bill (August 2007). "Complexity Leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era". The Leadership Quarterly. 18 (4): 298–318. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002.
85. Sims, Cynthia M.; Carter, Angela D.; Sparkman, Torrence E.; Morris, Lonnie R.; Durojaiye, Ande (November 2021). "On Black Male Leadership: A Study of Leadership Efficacy, Servant Leadership, and Engagement Mediated by Microaggressions". Advances in Developing Human Resources. 23 (4): 354–383. doi:10.1177/15234223211037753.
86. Collins, Joshua C. (December 2015). "Characteristics of "Masculinized" Industries: Gay Men as a Provocative Exception to Male Privilege and Gendered Rules". Human Resource Development Review. 14 (4): 415–441. doi:10.1177/1534484314559930.
87. Offermann, Lynn R.; Coats, Meredith R. (August 2018). "Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades" (PDF). The Leadership Quarterly. 29 (4): 513–522. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.003.
88. Feenstra, Sanne; Stoker, Janka I.; Lammers, Joris; Garretsen, Harry (1 January 2023). "Managerial stereotypes over time: the rise of feminine leadership". Gender in Management: An International Journal. 38 (6): 770–783. doi:10.1108/GM-10-2022-0331.
89. Powell, Gary N.; Butterfield, D. Anthony; Jiang, Xueting (12 July 2021). "The "good manager" over five decades: towards an androgynous profile?". Gender in Management: An International Journal. 36 (6): 714–730. doi:10.1108/GM-01-2021-0023.
90. Paustian-Underdahl, Samantha C.; Smith Sockbeson, Caitlin E.; Hall, Alison V.; Halliday, Cynthia Saldanha (December 2024). "Gender and evaluations of leadership behaviors: A meta-analytic review of 50 years of research". The Leadership Quarterly. 35 (6): 101822. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2024.101822.
91. Eagly, Alice H.; Johnson, Blair T. (September 1990). "Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis". Psychological Bulletin. 108 (2): 233–256. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233.
92. Van Engen, Marloes L.; Willemsen, Tineke M. (1 February 2004). "Sex and Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis of Research Published in the 1990s". Psychological Reports. 94 (1): 3–18. doi:10.2466/pr0.94.1.3-18. PMID   15077742.
93. Eagly, Alice H.; Johannesen-Schmidt, Mary C.; van Engen, Marloes L. (2003). "Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 129 (4): 569–591. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569. PMID   12848221.
94. Eagly, Alice Hendrickson; Carli, Linda Lorene (2007). Through the labyrinth: the truth about how women become leaders. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press. ISBN   978-1422116913.
95. Banks, George C.; Engemann, Krista N.; Williams, Courtney E.; Gooty, Janaki; McCauley, Kelly Davis; Medaugh, Melissa R. (August 2017). "A meta-analytic review and future research agenda of charismatic leadership". The Leadership Quarterly. 28 (4): 508–529. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.12.003.
96. Lemoine, G. James; Blum, Terry C. (March 2021). "Servant leadership, leader gender, and team gender role: Testing a female advantage in a cascading model of performance". Personnel Psychology. 74 (1): 3–28. doi:10.1111/peps.12379.
97. Babiak, Jolanta; Bajcar, Beata (13 November 2019). Gender Differences In Leadership Styles: Who Leads More Destructively?. 34th IBIMA Conference. Madrid, Spain. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
98. Kim, Joseph K.; Harold, Crystal M.; Holtz, Brian C. (March 2022). "Evaluations of abusive supervisors: The moderating role of the abuser's gender". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 43 (3): 465–482. doi:10.1002/job.2581.
99. Serjoie, Ara (2019). Examining the relationship between participation in youth leadership development and leadership styles of undergraduate college student leaders. Colorado State University. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
100. Muhr, Sara L; Sullivan, Katie Rose (August 2013). ""None so queer as folk": Gendered expectations and transgressive bodies in leadership". Leadership. 9 (3): 416–435. doi:10.1177/1742715013485857.
101. Hamilton-Page, Michelle (23 July 2023). "The final, final episode". Unbound Leadership - GNC/NB research project. Retrieved 2 August 2023.
102. Aarum Andersen, Jon; Hansson, Per H. (19 July 2011). "At the end of the road? On differences between women and men in leadership behaviour". Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 32 (5): 428–441. doi:10.1108/01437731111146550.
103. Kent, Thomas W.; Blair, Carrie A.; Rudd, Howard F.; Schuele, Ulrich (2010). "Gender Differences and Transformational Leadership Behavior: Do Both German Men and Women Lead in the Same Way?" (PDF). International Journal of Leadership Studies. 6 (1): 52–66. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
104. Badura, Katie L.; Galvin, Benjamin M.; Lee, Min Young (November 2022). "Leadership emergence: An integrative review". Journal of Applied Psychology. 107 (11): 2069–2100. doi:10.1037/apl0000997. PMID   34968077.
105. Megargee, Edwin I. (1969). "Influence of sex roles on the manifestation of leadership". Journal of Applied Psychology. 53 (5): 377–382. doi:10.1037/h0028093. PMID   5366309.
106. Eagly, Alice H.; Karau, Steven J. (May 1991). "Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 60 (5): 685–710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.60.5.685.
107. Elprana, Gwen; Felfe, Jörg; Stiehl, Sybille; Gatzka, Magdalena (July 2015). "Exploring the Sex Difference in Affective Motivation to Lead: Furthering the Understanding of Women's Underrepresentation in Leadership Positions". Journal of Personnel Psychology. 14 (3): 142–152. doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000137.
108. Dugan, John P.; Kusel, Michelle L.; Simounet, Dawn M. (September 2012). "Transgender College Students: An Exploratory Study of Perceptions, Engagement, and Educational Outcomes". Journal of College Student Development. 53 (5): 719–736. doi:10.1353/csd.2012.0067.
109. Badura, Katie L.; Grijalva, Emily; Galvin, Benjamin M.; Owens, Bradley P.; Joseph, Dana L. (April 2020). "Motivation to lead: A meta-analysis and distal-proximal model of motivation and leadership". Journal of Applied Psychology. 105 (4): 331–354. doi:10.1037/apl0000439. PMID   31393147.
110. Hogg, Michael A.; van Knippenberg, Daan; Rast, David E. (March 2012). "The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments". European Review of Social Psychology. 23 (1): 258–304. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.741134.
111. Gloor, Jamie L.; Morf, Manuela; Paustian-Underdahl, Samantha; Backes-Gellner, Uschi (January 2020). "Fix the Game, Not the Dame: Restoring Equity in Leadership Evaluations" (PDF). Journal of Business Ethics. 161 (3): 497–511. doi:10.1007/s10551-018-3861-y.
112. Huelskamp, Benjamin (2022). Queering Christian leadership: A narrative inquiry into the leadership of LGBTQIA+ church leaders. University of the Cumberlands.
113. Paustian-Underdahl, Samantha C.; Walker, Lisa Slattery; Woehr, David J. (November 2014). "Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 99 (6): 1129–1145. doi:10.1037/a0036751. PMID   24773399.
114. Lowe, Kevin B.; Kroeck, K.Galen; Sivasubramaniam, Nagaraj (September 1996). "Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the mlq literature" (PDF). The Leadership Quarterly. 7 (3): 385–425. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2.
115. Judge, Timothy A.; Piccolo, Ronald F. (October 2004). "Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Validity" (PDF). Journal of Applied Psychology. 89 (5): 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755. PMID   15506858.
116. Oh, In-Sue; Courtright, Stephen H.; Colbert, Amy E. (April 2011). "Transformational Leadership and Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of Research". Group & Organization Management. 36 (2): 223–270. doi:10.1177/1059601111401017.
117. Conference Board. "Ready-Now Leaders: Meeting Tomorrow's Manufacturing Talent Challenges". Conference Board. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
118. Hoobler, Jenny M.; Masterson, Courtney R.; Nkomo, Stella M.; Michel, Eric J. (July 2018). "The Business Case for Women Leaders: Meta-Analysis, Research Critique, and Path Forward". Journal of Management. 44 (6): 2473–2499. doi:10.1177/0149206316628643. hdl: 2263/69115 .
119. Desvaux, G; Devillard-Hoellinger, S; Baumgarten, P. "Women matter: Time to accelerate: Ten years of insights into gender diversity" (PDF). McKinsey & Company. Retrieved 19 January 2025.
120. Byron, Kris; Post, Corinne (July 2016). "Women on Boards of Directors and Corporate Social Performance: A Meta-Analysis". Corporate Governance: An International Review. 24 (4): 428–442. doi:10.1111/corg.12165.
121. Hurley, Parker T. I am because we are: Exploring the relationships between mentorship, involvement in LGBTQ student organizations, resiliency, and leadership efficacy of queer students of color (PDF) (PhD thesis). The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. ISBN   9781369097702 . Retrieved 18 January 2025.
122. Salter, Nicholas P.; Liberman, Benjamin (2016). "The Influence of Sexual Orientation and Gender on Perceptions of Successful Leadership Characteristics". Sexual Orientation and Transgender Issues in Organizations: 429–449. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29623-4_25. ISBN   978-3-319-29621-0.
123. Wang, Gang; Steffensen, David S.; Perrewé, Pamela L.; Ferris, Gerald R.; Jordan, Samantha L. (June 2022). "Does Leader Same-sex Sexual Orientation Matter to Leadership Effectiveness? A Four-study Model-testing Investigation". Journal of Business and Psychology. 37 (3): 557–580. doi:10.1007/s10869-021-09759-y. PMC   8280998 . PMID   34305312.
124. Brescoll, Victoria L. (June 2016). "Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders". The Leadership Quarterly. 27 (3): 415–428. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005.
125. Stitzel, Judith Gold (2023). "What happened to the women?". In Tan, Sherylle J.; DeFrank-Cole, Lisa (eds.). A research agenda for gender and leadership. Edward Elgar. pp. 127–140.
126. Haber-Curran, Paige; Tillapaugh, Daniel (June 2017). "Gender and Student Leadership: A Critical Examination" (PDF). New Directions for Student Leadership. 2017 (154): 11–22. doi:10.1002/yd.20236. PMID   28524548.
127. Shea, Heather D.; Renn, Kristen A. (June 2017). "Gender and Leadership: A Call to Action". New Directions for Student Leadership. 2017 (154): 83–94. doi:10.1002/yd.20242. PMID   28524549.
128. Elliott, Karla (August 2016). "Caring Masculinities: Theorizing an Emerging Concept" (PDF). Men and Masculinities. 19 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1177/1097184X15576203.