1
Breaking the Glass Ceiling
An analysis of factors that hold women back from
senior positions in organizations
I. Branzea
Bachelorthese
Student number: 5634202
Date: 16.12.2013
Supervisor: Nathalie Boot
Words: 5.380
2
Abstract
The glass ceiling problem refers to the underrepresentation of women in senior positions. Up
until now no in-depth understanding of the underlying psychological factors has been
published. This paper looks at three socio-psychological factors that contribute to the glass
ceiling: stereotyping, female communication style and the Queen Bee syndrome.
Organizational stereotyping negatively influences female leadership aspiration and
performance. Additionally, they negatively influence leadership preference and performance
evaluation. This effect could be moderated by self-efficacy. Communication styles, warmth
and competence are evaluated in relation to the situation. However, female leaders can only
adopt competence if they maintain warmth where male leaders can switch at will. Finally, the
Queen Bee syndrome is explained as negative and stereotypical views of the group by
distancing the self from the group. This is moderated by level of group identification. The
glass ceiling appears to be persistent and hard to break. Recommendations are given.
3
Introduction
Despite of early efforts to break the glass ceiling for women and increase their
numbers and pay in senior positions the salary gap has widened even more in recent years
(BBC, 2013). A wide range of measures have been used to break the glass ceiling, ranging
from positive discrimination in hiring practices to regulation of equal salaries for men and
women. These actions have largely been futile. Its urgency, however, has never been more
pressing. It is not only from a moral standpoint that female participation in senior positions
should be encouraged. During troubling economic times it is all the more important to
optimize the use of all labor and knowledge capital a country has to offer; as women make up
more than half of the population in many western countries it seems only logical to expect
them to fulfill senior positions proportionally. Yet, the failure of early measures shows that
the glass ceiling cannot simply be broken by combating the symptoms (e.g., the wage gap).
There is a real need to look at the underlying factors that contribute to and influence the glass
ceiling.
This paper analyzes the factors that contribute to the glass ceiling. The term glass
ceiling was introduced in the late 20th century to describe “the invisible and artificial barriers
that block women and minorities from advancing up the corporate ladder” (Johns, 2013).
Early research on the glass ceiling has mainly been done by either economists or management
studies. Although these papers provide valuable insight into the scale of the problem they fail
to pinpoint the reasons for which there is such a discrepancy between male and female
employees in senior positions. Even though research recognized that psychological factors
such as stereotyping and role-contingency contribute to the glass ceiling, their workings have
been dismissed in finding a suitable solution (Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009). For example,
the Glass Ceiling Act of 1991 suggested that introducing merit-based hiring practices alone
would be sufficient to remove the glass ceiling (Johns, 2013). This example shows the general
4
trend to focus on formal changes to organizational structures to remove the glass ceiling. Only
more recently researchers have shifted their focus to psychological factors that contribute to
the glass ceiling (e.g., Barreto et al., 2009; Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). However, so far no
coherent paper exists that provides an overview of all factors and how they interact with each
other. This paper contributes to the field by doing just that. In other words, this paper analyzes
the important factors that are responsible for the glass ceilings.
Previous studies (e.g., Johns, 2013; Barreto et al., 2009) have suggested three factors
that potentially contribute to the ceiling: organizational stereotyping, gender communication
styles and the Queen Bee syndrome.
Stereotypes are oversimplified beliefs about an individual’s behavior and thought
based on their group membership. Organizational stereotyping concerns the process by which
stereotype qualities are projected on all members of a specific group within an organization,
in this case gender groups. Stereotypes have two elements: expectations about what members
of these groups are actually like (descriptive) and what they should be like (normative) (Eagly
& Sczesny, 2009). Generally women are expected to be communal whereas men are expected
to be assertive. The power of gender stereotypes results from their pervasiveness; they are
automatic and are the most basic tool we use to categorize people (Stangor, Lynch, Duan, &
Glass, 1992 as cited in Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). Successful leadership is commonly
associated with characteristics similar to those of the male stereotype (i.e. assertiveness or
agentic behavior). Hence, women stereotype characteristics are perceived as non-compatible
with this image of leaders (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009). Role-congruity theory has often been
used to explain why stereotypes are holding women back from senior leadership positions
(e.g., Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Hoyt et al., 2010). As leadership stereotypes are similar to male
stereotypes, pressure is placed on women to exhibit male characteristics in order to appear
competent as leader. However, if they do so, they violate the female stereotype. Therefore it
5
has often been argued that women cannot win. Not all is grim though. Brehm (1966, in Hoyt
et al., 2010) theorized that stereotype threat leads to either stereotype confirming (stereotype
vulnerability) or counter-stereotypical behavior (stereotype reactance). In other words,
stereotype threat does not necessarily lead to a decrease in emotional well-being and
performance but can actually increase it under some circumstances.
Gender communication style is the term to describe the difference between two styles
of leader-follower communication associated with gender. A communication style that
reflects competence refers to directive and self-promoting behavior, communication is hence
used as a means to direct people or enhance one’s own standing. On the other hand, a
communication style that reflects warmth style refers to the use of communication to create
emotional relationships and hence is characterized by compassion and emotional support
(Rudman, 1998; Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2008). Competence is generally associated with male
leadership while warmth is associated with female leadership. But this division is not definite
– individuals of both sexes can adopt either style or a combination of both.
The Queen Bee syndrome is the phenomenon where women in senior positions
obstruct rather than help other women to rise in organizational ranks because they perceive
other women in a stereotypical manner. Ellemers, Van Den Heuvel, De Gilder, Maass, and
Bonvini (2004) described it as individual upward mobility that results in distancing the self
from the group stereotype. This does not only involves perceiving the self as a nonprototypical group member, but also creates stereotypical views of other in-group members.
This translates into practice as senior female employees perceiving female lower-level
employees as less competent than their male counterparts.
Earlier research on the glass ceiling has often used the role congruity theory. This
theory argues that individuals are perceived to belong to a certain group (in this case either
6
male or female) and behave similar to the general image of that group (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
In other words, individuals are expected to behave in accordance to a certain role instilled on
them by the group. This role is both descriptive (how they behave) as normative (how they
should behave). If an individual behaves in ways that are in conflict with their role, they are
perceived to be violating these norms. Generally, violation of these norms leads to less
favorable perceptions of the person (Eagly & Karau, 2002).
This paper first looks at how organizational stereotyping influences female
participation in the workplace. It analyzes the effects of stereotyping on leadership aspiration
and performance. Also, it looks at how stereotypes influence people’s perception of others
and their performance. Secondly, the effects of the different communication styles (warmth
and competence) on leadership performance are discussed. Their relation to stereotyping and
the moderating role of context are discussed. Finally the Queen Bee syndrome is reviewed.
The moderator group identification is also considered in relation to the Queen Bee syndrome.
Factor 1: Organizational stereotyping
Early research into stereotypes found that certain qualities associated with leadership
(i.e. assertiveness) are seen as masculine whereas caring qualities are seen as feminine (e.g.,
Arkkelin & Simmons, 1985 as cited in Hoyt et al., 2010). Women who consciously
experience stereotyping are emotionally affected by it. Research has shown adverse emotional
consequences for the stereotyped individual such as decrease of well-being and confidence
(Hoyt & Blascovich, 2007). This would mean that stereotyping cause women in leadership
positions to be perceived as incompetent. This, in turn, would negatively influence their
performance and aspirations.
7
Performance and aspiration
A large number of studies (e.g. Steele & Aronson, 1995 in Hoyt et al., 2010; Davies,
Spencer & Steele, 2005) have shown that exposure to the threat of being stereotyped by others
decreases female performance in decision-making and leadership roles. Typically, this
stereotype confirming reaction to threat has been assumed to be the only reaction. However,
stereotype threat can also increase performance (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001). When
stereotypes are implicit or embedded, they tend to lead to stereotype vulnerability. However,
when women are explicitly confronted by blatant stereotypes they engage in stereotype
reactance by showing counter-stereotypical behavior. Kray et al. (2001) found that women
outperformed their male counterparts on a negotiation task when a blatant stereotype was
introduced. However, when the stereotype was implicit, they performed worse than their male
counterparts. Clearly, the effect of stereotypes is more complicated than first suggested. This
is not only true for general performance, but also for leadership aspirations. Implicit
stereotypes decrease female leadership aspirations. (Davies, Spencer, & Steel, 2005). Davies
et al. (2005) manipulated the presence of stereotypes by exposing female participants to
stereotypical commercials. After the viewing, participants in the experimental group showed
significantly less leadership aspiration than those in the control group. Similar studies have
confirmed this finding (e.g., Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010). However, this effect of stereotypes on
women’s aspiration is not as straightforward as these studies seem to suggest. In a second
study, Davies et al. (2005) found that identity safety moderates the effect. Identity safety is
the extent to which the environment enforces stereotypes or makes them salient. In their
study, Davies et al duplicated their initial study but added two different conditions to measure
leadership aspiration: the low identity safety condition where leadership was presented as
masculine and the high identity safety condition where leadership was presented as gender
neutral. Only in the low identity safety group the initial averse effect of stereotypes on
8
leadership aspirations was found. These findings suggest that the effect of stereotypes is
depended upon circumstances. More specifically, the effects of stereotypes are much weaker
in a company that employs many women. Following up on these findings, Hoyt et al. (2010)
suggested that identity safety in organizational settings is determined by sex-composition (i.e.
whether female leaders work in male, female or mixed-gender employee group). Stereotype
threat could result both in stereotype vulnerability and reactance in an all-female group.
However, when a single female was working in an all-male group, stereotype threat inevitably
led to stereotype confirming behavior. In conclusion, a stereotype threat can, but not
necessarily will, lead to stereotype confirming behavior among women and may negatively
affect both performance and leadership aspiration. The actual effect of a stereotype depends
on the situation in which the threat occurs. In recent years, a number of other moderating
variables have been researched to increase understanding about why stereotype threat can lead
to either vulnerability or reactance.
Self-efficacy
Not only contextual factors, such as identity safety, moderate the effect of stereotyping
on female leadership performance and aspiration. Also, personal factors like emotions and
beliefs play an important moderating role (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010). An important belief
about one’s own capability to complete a task, self-efficacy, moderates the influence of
stereotype threat on performance. High self-efficacy enables an individual to react to
stereotyping in a positive rather than negative manner. This has been investigated and
confirmed by Hoyt and Blascovich (2010) in an extensive study using cardiovascular,
behavioral and self-report measures to assess the impact of stereotypes on performance and
emotional well-being. Women who experienced high leadership self-efficacy scored higher on
9
all measures than women with low self-efficacy when confronted by stereotype threat.
Interestingly, women with high self-efficacy scored higher under stereotype threat than those
under normal circumstances.
These findings show that stereotype threat generally leads to decrease of performance
and aspiration, especially when the threat is implicit. On the other hand, a more hopeful
perspective on stereotype shows that, under the right circumstances (high identity safety) or
together with the right personal characteristics (high self-efficacy) an explicit threat can
actually increase performance. In practice, unfortunately, stereotypes are often implicit and
occur in low identity safety circumstances, as senior positions in organizations are still
dominated by males (Eagly et al., 2009). This, in part, explains why the glass ceiling is so
persistent. Measures have mainly targeted explicit forms of stereotypes but neglected implicit
social psychological aspects of it. So far, the research has only focused on how the individual
that is the target of the stereotyping reacts to being stereotyped. Within organizations,
however, successful performance in senior positions (or being elected for such a position)
depends on collaboration with colleagues. Hence, it is important to understand how
stereotypes shape other people’s perceptions of women in senior positions.
Group preference and perceived performance
Studies within the field of evolutionary psychology have established that leadership
preferences are heavily biased towards male leadership a long time ago (Eagly & Karau, 2002
as cited in Hoyt, Simon, & Reid, 2009). On the other hand, groups of people of the same sex
tend to prefer a leader from the same group. In other words, female groups prefer a female
leader whereas male groups prefer a male leader. This is an example of the in-group bias. This
is especially influential under threat. Hoyt et al. (2009) used mortality salience to induce a
10
crisis situation. Undergraduate students where either presented with a mortality salient or
neutral condition after which they viewed a male and female campaign advertisement.
Leadership preference was measured by voting for either the male or female candidate.
Results confirmed the in-group bias to the extent that female participants expressed
preference for a female leader and male participants for a male leader. This would mean that
during an organizational crisis, leadership preference is depends on the gender of the
employee’s. But this study did not take stereotype into account. In a second study Hoyt et al.
(2009) manipulated gender stereotype in the candidates (communal versus agentic).
Interestingly, the female participants preferred an agentic leader regardless of sex but the male
participants still preferred a male leader regardless of characteristics. Organizational
stereotypes then do not only decrease female leadership aspirations and performance but also
incline other employees within the company to generally prefer a male leader. This effect of
stereotypes is even stronger when the stereotype is negative (Arndt, Greenberg, Schimel,
Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 2002). A negative stereotype adds a value judgment to the initial
stereotype (i.e. ‘women are bad leaders’ instead of ‘women are communal’). Unfortunately,
little research on the difference between neutral and negative stereotypes has been done. In
summary, it appears to be extremely difficult for women to be elected to senior positions by
their peers. Even if they manage to do so, however, they are far from breaking the glass
ceiling effect. After fighting their way into the higher ranks of an organization, women are
confronted with yet another aspect of the glass ceiling: other people’s perception of their
performance.
Not only are women at a disadvantage during the election for a senior position, they
are also confronted by lower perceived performance ratings by their peers (Eagly & Karau,
2002; Johnson, Murphy, Zewdie, & Reichard, 2008). This effect of stereotypes on perceived
performance relates to the normative part of stereotypes: what people of certain groups ought
11
to do. Role-congruity theory has been used to explain why similar behavior by a male and
female leader results in worse perceived performance for the female leader. Since leadership
stereotypically requires behavior such as assertiveness and self-promotion it conflicts with the
characteristics of the female stereotype. Consequently, women who exhibit these leadership
behaviors are viewed as violating their role, they do not behave as they ought to do. In a
survey study among business students Johnson et al. (2008) found that leaders who violated
their gender stereotype norms were rated less effective. For example, female leaders who
showed masculine behavior (i.e. assertiveness) were rated less effective than sensitive female
leaders. This is problematic because leadership positions generally require masculine behavior
characteristics such as assertiveness (Eagly et al., 2002). This would mean that women in
leadership positions are consistently rated more negatively than their male counterparts.
However, it should be noted that Johnson et al. (2008) had participants rate leaders on a scale
including sensitivity on the one end and assertiveness on the other end. This implies that an
increase on one characteristic necessarily means a decrease on the other. In a second study,
however, they separated this into two separate scales. In this study they confirmed the finding
that assertiveness and sensitivity are seen as important for, respectively, male and female
leaders. However, female leaders who showed both sensitive and assertive behavior were
rated as equally effective as their male counterparts. In other words, female leaders can be
perceived as effective but only if they simultaneously show communal and agentic behavior.
In practice, this puts a great demand on female leaders to enact both behaviors – Eagly et al.
(2002) argue that, although this is theoretically feasible, it is very hard in practice.
The effect of stereotypes on female’s perceived leadership performance is not the
same under all circumstances (Eagly et al., 2002). Two moderating variables may reduce the
unfavorable perceptions people may have about female leadership performance. First, the
extent to which masculine characteristics are inherent to the job may moderate the effect of
12
stereotypes on performance perceptions (Eagly et al., 2002). For example, a female leader in
the military may be viewed less favorable than a female leader in a hospital as these fields are,
respectively, associated with masculine and feminine characteristics. In this case a female
military leader will probably have to show more masculine features than the hospital leader
and, hence, violate the role perception more resulting in less favorable evaluation. Second, the
values of the perceiver matter (e.g., Glick & Fiske, 1996 as cited in Eagly et al., 2002). If
perceivers hold strong traditional values they are more likely to evaluate female leaders that
show assertive behavior as unfavorable.
In conclusion, stereotypes are, especially when implicit, a powerful factor that keeps
the glass ceiling in place. They do so by influencing both the stereotyped women themselves
and their colleagues. On the one hand, stereotypes decrease female leadership aspiration and
performance. This effect depends on moderating factors such as identity safety and the extent
to which the stereotype is explicit. On the other hand, stereotypes about leaders make it
difficult for women to be seen as a potential leader. Generally, people prefer male leaders
over female leaders. Even when women do reach a senior position their performance is
perceived as less favorable than performance of their male counterparts. This can be
overcome by showing both masculine and feminine behavior, which in practice is rather
difficult.
In the studies that have been discussed so far, the effect of stereotyping on female
leadership has been studied in static environments. In other words, the interaction between
female leaders and their subjects has not been discussed. In practice, both parties are always
interacting with each other. Therefore, it is important to look at this interaction and how it
relates to stereotypes and the glass ceiling in general.
13
Factor 2: Gender communication
Communication styles can be defined as either reflecting competence or warmth.
Competence-reflecting communication is directive, self-promoting and associated with male
leadership. Warmth-reflecting communication is supportive, emotional and associated with
female leadership. This paper refers to the former as a directive communication style and the
latter as a supportive communication style. Both styles of communication influence
subordinates perception and evaluation of the leader (Cikara & Fiske, 2009; Cuddy, Fiske &
Glick, 2008). The supportive communication style has the strongest positive effect on
subordinates compared to the directive style. In experiments using narratives about leaders,
supportive characteristics were rated more positively than directive characteristics (Cuddy et
al., 2008; Cuddy, Glick & Beninger, 2011). Contrary to the results discussed above, this
would mean that female leaders are seen as more positive than male leaders.
However, further research has shown that the effect of communication style is not all
that simple. Situational factors moderate the effect of communication style on subordinates.
Follower preference for warmth as communication style is replaced by a preference for
competence in threatening situations (Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). A
threat does not have to be of sizeable magnitude to induce this effect, low profit or pressure to
perform in companies is enough to create a threat reaction. This makes male leaders more
advantageous as leaders during threatening times. Specific communication styles are not
restricted to a specific gender (Cuddy et al., 2011), so male leaders can use a supportive
communication style and female leaders can use a directive communication style. But the
consequences of doing so differ strongly. Cuddy et al. (2011) found that, while male leaders
can adopt a style that is appropriate for the situation, female leaders cannot. If female leaders
show competence during threatening situations they are still rated less favorably than their
male counterpart. Only if they show both warmth and competence they are perceived as
14
positively as their male counterparts. A possible explanation for this difference relates to the
previous section on stereotypes. When female leaders use a directive style, they violate gender
expectations as explained by role congruity theory. In order to be evaluated positively, they
need to satisfy their role stereotype by showing warmth in addition to competence.
Interestingly, male leaders who adopted a supportive style in an appropriate situation were
rated favorable nonetheless (Cuddy et al., 2011). Hence, the gender bias holds only for female
leaders.
In conclusion, female leaders have a slight advantage over male leaders, as their most
prevalent style of communication (supportive) is perceived as more positive by followers than
directive. This advantage soon disappears when different situations are taken into account as
moderators of the effect of communication styles on subordinates’ perceptions. Also, whereas
male leaders seem to be able to switch communication styles in accordance with the situation,
female leaders are constrained by role stereotypes that allow them little flexibility.
So far, women have been presented as victims of stereotypes with very little means to
fight back and break the glass ceiling. But recent evidence has suggested that women
themselves may have a firm hand in keeping the ceiling in place.
Factor 3: Queen-Bee syndrome
Women in senior positions are not only held back by male colleagues but also by
fellow female employees, especially by females in senior positions (Ellemers et al., 2004;
Derks, Ellemers, van Laar, & de Groot, 2011). These Queen Bees are “senior women in
masculine organizational cultures who have fulfilled their career aspirations by dissociating
themselves from their gender while simultaneously contributing to the gender stereotyping of
other women” (Derks et al., 2011). In a study among doctorate students and faculty members,
15
Ellemers et al. (2004) did not find any difference in self-reported commitment between male
and female students. However, female faculty members rated the female students as less
committed than their male counterparts.
Women in senior positions have often been confronted by stereotypes earlier in their
career. To move up the hierarchy, they showed counter-stereotypical behavior and,
consequently, also start to perceive themselves as different from the overall group. In other
words, they distance themselves from the group by showing behavior that disconfirms the
stereotype of this group (for example, by showing assertiveness instead of caring). Indeed,
women that are referred to as Queen Bees generally show increased gender stereotyping and
masculine self-descriptions (Derks et al., 2011). Clearly, these so called Queen Bees, do not
see themselves as part of the stereotypical female group within an organization.
Consequently, research has looked into the moderating effect of the level of group
identification on the Queen Bee syndrome.
Women who show high levels of group identification (see themselves as part of and
similar to the group of females within an organization) are less likely to perceive female
colleagues as stereotypical (Becker & Wagner, 2008). These women, when confronted with
sexism or stereotypes within an organization, are also more likely to participate in collective
action against it. In other words, they will intentionally support the rise of women in the
organizational hierarchy. On the other hand, women with low levels of group identification
are more likely to perceive other women in the organization in a stereotypical way. Also,
Becker and Wagner (2008) found that females in senior positions that entered the
organizations with low levels of group identification were more likely to show Queen Bee
characteristics when they reached senior positions. This was especially true when they were
confronted by stereotypes or sexism themselves. This would lead them to differentiate
16
themselves even more from the group because they became aware of the burden of the
stereotype.
These findings further explain why the glass ceiling is so difficult to break. Not only
do women have to battle stereotypes and be aware of their style of communication, they also
appear to have to battle their own group. But recently controversy about the research on the
Queen Bee syndrome came into play. Mavin (2008) pointed out that the Queen Bee label
itself conforms to sexism. On the one hand, women are expected to help the advancement of
other women in organizations, especially because they are perceived as warm and caring. If
they choose not do this, they are labeled as Queen Bee’s. According to Mavin (2008) this
creates an unfair ‘either or’ binary scale on which women are categorized. It is not considered
whether these women, for example, simply considered their subordinates to be unfit for the
job regardless of their sex.
In summary, preliminary research seems to provide some support for women holding
other women back in organizations due to low group identification and stereotype views of
the gender group. But these findings are not without controversy and the topic requires further
research.
Discussion and conclusion
This paper analyzed the different socio-psychological factors that contribute to the
glass ceiling phenomenon. Specifically, it looked at stereotypes, communication style and the
Queen Bee syndrome as underlying factors. Stereotypes were found to be the most important
factor that contributes to the glass ceiling (Hoyt & Blascovich, 2010). Generally, stereotypes
negatively influence leadership aspiration and performance. This effect is the strongest when
the stereotypes are implicit. When they are explicit (blatant stereotyping) they may either
17
result in stereotype confirming or stereotype disconfirming behavior. When self-efficacy is
high, stereotypes have a less strong effect on performance and may even increase
performance. When self-efficacy is low stereotype effect is the strongest. Stereotypes also
influence group perception on leadership preference (Eagly & Karau, 2002). On one hand,
they incline people to prefer male leaders. This effect of stereotypes is so strong that it
overcomes the in-group bias of women when a threat is introduced. On the other hand, female
leaders are evaluated less favorable and efficient than their male counterparts. Related to
stereotypes, communication styles favor men (Cuddy et al., 2011). Although generally
communication style reflecting warmth is perceived as more favorable, communication
reflecting competence becomes more important within crisis situations in organizations. Also,
whereas male leaders can adopt the appropriate style of communication for the situation
female leaders need to maintain warmth to not violate the stereotype. Finally, it was shown
that women also hold other women back due to distancing themselves from other women and
perceiving them as stereotypical ((Becker & Wagner, 2008). This is more likely when group
identification is low.
These findings discussed in this paper have implications for both theory and practice.
When it comes to the theory, this paper provides support for the role congruity theory. It
confirmed that people indeed view people through specific roles or stereotypes. These
stereotypes do not only describe behavior of a certain group but also state what members of
the group should behave like. When either of these role norms is violated, this results in
negative evaluation of the individual. On the other hand, when individuals act in line with
their role, they are perceived more favorable.
Practically, these findings provide little reason for optimism. As this paper shows,
stereotypes are often implicit in organizations and thus very persistent. Women also appear to
be under attack from all sides: their seniors, subordinates and fellow female colleagues. It
18
should by now then be clear that traditional measures of hiring-practices and wage regulation
were not sufficient to break the glass ceiling. Instead, attention should be focused on changing
the psychological factors that keep the ceiling in place, stereotyping should be the main
priority. Several researchers (e.g., Johns, 2013; Eagly & Sczesny, 2008) have referred to
psychological research on bias that demonstrated that intensive training can reduce the effect
of implicit stereotypes. This is done by continuously making people aware of their implicit
beliefs and assumptions.
The studies discussed in this paper have two important limitations. The first limitation
is the methodology widely used in the cited studies: self-report. Self-report is a research
method that is very prone to bias and confounding factors (Robson, 2011). This is especially
true when it comes to beliefs and stereotypes. As stereotypes are more often than not implicit
people are rarely aware of them and, thus, unable to report on them. The effect of
organizational stereotyping on the glass ceiling may therefore have been misperceived due to
their implicit nature. This would partially explain why the effects of explicit stereotypes differ
so strongly from implicit stereotypes. On the one hand, explicit stereotypes allow for socially
acceptable self-reports while on the other hand implicit stereotypes could be more ‘real’ but
much harder to measure. In short, self-report is a risky method of research, especially with a
complicated subject as stereotypes. Then again, some of the cited studies have guarded
themselves against these pitfalls by using additional forms of measures (e.g., cardiovascular,
observer). This triangulation of methods can, to a reasonable extent, protect against flawed
measurements (Robson, 2011).
A second limitation is the one-dimensional approach to leadership in these studies.
Research on the glass ceiling has often operationalized senior positions as leadership positions
(Cuddy et al., 2011). But the problem here is that nearly all studies only use transactional
leadership, this is the traditional form of leadership were a leader directs his followers based
19
on authority and pay for performance. A rare exception is a study by von Hippe, Zouroudis
and Abbas (2003) that compared the effects of stereotypes between transactional and
transformational leadership. They found that the effects of stereotypes were less negative for
transformational leadership. It may, then, be that the effects of stereotypes appear stronger
than that they are due to the bias towards transactional leadership. However, these are only
preliminary findings and further research is needed to deal with an important shortcoming of
research on the glass ceiling.
These limitations highlight points of interest that future research should focus on.
First, more research on the difference between implicit and explicit stereotyping should be
done. This can simply be done by introducing an extra condition in laboratory studies so that
the effects of both forms can be tested. More importantly, research should critically evaluate
their forms of measurement. Cuddy et al. (2011) point out that seemingly unrelated decisionmaking tasks (e.g., photo selection tasks) can be used to assess implicit biases and
stereotypes. Second, research should appreciate that recently many different forms of
leadership, among them transformational, are being adopted by organizations. These may
drastically alter the influence of stereotypes and, indeed, the glass ceiling as such.
20
Literature
Arndt, J., Greenberg, J., Schimel, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (2002). To belong or
not to belong, that is the question: Terror management and identification with gender
and ethnicity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 26-43.
Barreto, M., Ryan, M.K., & Schmitt, M.T. (2009). Is the glass ceiling still relevant in the 21st
century? The Glass Ceiling in the 21st Century: Understanding barriers to gender
equality.
BBC. (2013). Viewpoints: Should equal gender pay be enforced? Retrieved 2-12-2013 from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23769524.
Becker, J.A. & Wagner, U. (2008). Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of
gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's
endorsement of sexist beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 487-508.
Cikara, M. & Fiske, S.T. (2009). Warmth, competence, and ambivalent sexism: Vertical
assault and collateral damage? In American Psychological Association (2009). The
Glass Ceiling in the 21st Century: Understanding barriers to gender equality.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal
dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map.
Advances in Experimental Psychology, 40, 61-149.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence
judgements, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 31, 73-98.
21
Davies, P.G., Spencer, S.J., & Steele, C.M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates
the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 276-287.
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C., & de Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational
cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 519-535.
Eagly, A.H. & Karau, S.J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109, 573-598.
Eagly, A.H. & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men and leaders: Have times
changed? In American Psychological Association (2009). The Glass Ceiling in the 21st
Century: Understanding barriers to gender equality.
Ellemers, N., Van Den Heuvel, H., De Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004).The
underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee
syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 1-24.
Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition:
Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 11, 77-83.
Von Hippe, C., Zouroudis, A., & Abbas, F. (2003). The influence of stereotype threat on
leadership performance of men and women. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55,
page unknown
Von Hippe, C., Wiryakusuma, C., Bowden, J., & Shochet, M. (2011). Stereotype threat and
22
female communication styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 13121324.
Hoyt, C.L. & Bascovich, J. (2007). Leadership efficacy and women leaders' responses to
stereotype activation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 595-616.
Hoyt, C.L. & Bascovich, J. (2010). The role of leadership self-efficacy and stereotype
activation on cardiovascular, behavioral and self-report responses in the leadership
domain. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 89-103.
Hoyt, C.L., Johnson, S.K., Murphy, S.E., & Skinnell, K.H. (2010). The impact of blatant
stereotype activation and group sex-composition on female leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21, 716-732.
Hoyt, C.L., Simon, S., & Reid, L. (2009). Choosing the best (wo)man for the job: The effects
of mortality salience, sex, and gender stereotypes on leader evaluations. The
Leadership Quarterly, 20, 233-246.
Johns, M.L. (2013). Breaking the glass ceiling: Structural, cultural, and organizational barriers
preventing women from achieving senior and executive positions. Perspectives in
Health Information Management, 10, 1-11.
Johnson, S.K., Murphy, S.E., Zewdie, S., & Reichard, R.J. (2008). The strong, sensitive
type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male
and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106,
39-60.
Kray, L.J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: gender stereotype
23
confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 942-958.
Mavin, S. (2008). Queen Bees, Wannabees and Afraid to Bees: No More ‘Best Enemies’ for
Women in Management? British Journal of Manangement, 19, s75-s84.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research. Wiley: United Kingdom.
Rudman, L.A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of
counter-stereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 74, 629-645.