By Crystal Hoyt , University of California, Santa Barbara

Academic Citation: Crystal Hoyt, “Women Leaders: The Role of Stereotype Activation and Leadership Self-efficacy,” Kravis Leadership Institute Leadership Review, Fall 2002.

About the Author: Crystal Hoyt is completing her Ph.D. in social psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. As an educator, she has taught a variety of courses including Leadership and Group Dynamics and as a researcher she focuses on investigating processes of effective leadership and better understanding the role of stereotypes and discrimination on women and minority leaders.

INTRODUCTION

Women leaders face undue hardships and stressors in the leadership role due to negative stereotypes and biases. Although the last 30 years in America have seen many important social changes, the perception that women do not fit the image of the ideal leader is still pervasive and resistant to change (Chemers, 1997). Indeed, while women now occupy a considerable portion of middle management positions, they are still underrepresented in the upper echelons of America’s corporations. Though women currently represent 46% of the U.S. workforce, they hold only about 6% of executive titles like CEO, chairwoman, and executive vice president; only four women hold CEO positions at Fortune 500 companies (Einhart, 2001). Thus, as members of underrepresented groups, women still face many challenges in the leadership role.

Murphy (2001) has identified two primary ways that stereotypes can affect non-traditional leaders. These stereotypes can interfere with both others’ perceptions of the leader and the leaders’ own self-perceptions. First, the negative stereotypes regarding these non-traditional leaders can affect appraisals of their performance by their subordinates, peers or superiors; these perceptions may ultimately affect selection and promotion decisions.

OTHERS’ PERCEPTIONS

Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky’s (1992) meta-analysis of gender and leader evaluation revealed that male and female leaders appear to be evaluated differently. Specifically, male and female leaders were evaluated equally favorably when they used a stereotypically feminine leadership style (democratic) but the female leaders were evaluated unfavorably when they used a stereotypically male leadership style (autocratic and directive). Also, women were particularly devalued when the raters were men. Additionally, stereotypes regarding women leaders that are incompatible with stereotypes of effective leaders, such as feminine emotionality or dependency, may affect expectations of their performance (Lord & Maher, 1991). Along this vein, behaviors that are considered appropriate for non-traditional leaders may appear incompatible with effective leadership behaviors (Ayman, 1993). In sum, through a variety of processes, stereotypes can significantly alter our perception of non-traditional leaders.

SELF-PERCEPTIONS

The second avenue in which these stereotypes can adversely affect female leaders is through their effects on the leaders’ self-perceptions; this path is the focus of my current research. Research has shown that when capable individuals doubt their ability, their performance is undermined (Bandura, 1997); negative stereotypes have been shown to undermine individuals’ assessments of their abilities and result in decreased performance. Indeed, a comprehensive set of studies by Steele and colleagues has resulted in a well-developed model of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). In this model they highlight the role that the psychological burden of stereotype-based expectations of inferiority in achievement domains plays in the underperformance of women and minorities (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998).

STEREOTYPE THREAT

Stereotype threat is defined as the way individuals feel when they are at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their group (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998). Under severe threat, social interaction and cognitive performance can be undermined. The stereotype threat model has established three links between stereotypes and underachievement in academic domains. First, the model is premised on the notion that while people like to think well of themselves and have others think well of them, negative stereotypes are self-threatening. Second, a fear of performing poorly has been shown to undermine intellectual performance. Finally, in the face of persistent stereotype threat, individuals may psychologically disengage from the academic domain, termed disidentification.

To test the three parts of this model, researchers have examined various factors designed to either increase or decrease stereotype threat. For example, investigations manipulating test diagnosticity have revealed that when individuals believe an academic test is diagnostic of ability, African Americans, Latinos, and women underperform in relation to European Americans and men (Quinn & Spencer, 1996; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Aronson & Salinas, 1997). Other studies have manipulated the relevance of the stereotype either by portraying the test as one in which group differences (across gender or race) do not occur or by raising the issue of test bias. In these studies, the applicability of the stereotype seems to play a role in whether or not the task will evoke stereotype threat and the resultant performance impairments for African Americans, women, and Latinos (Aronson & Salinas, 1997; Broadnax, Crocker, & Spencer, 1997). Additionally, stereotype threat, as measured by decrements in test performance, has been evoked in European Americans when confronted with the stereotype of Asian Americans’ math superiority.

While stereotype threat has been empirically shown primarily in academic domains, stereotype activation may have important implications in the realm of leadership. Through empirical investigations, researchers have identified the type of situation likely to evoke a state of stereotype threat (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998). Stereotype threat is most likely to occur when the task is difficult, when the ability is submitted to evaluation, when the stereotype applies to the performance, and when individuals are highly identified with the domain in question. Leading a group is a complex, evaluative task for which there exist negative stereotypes regarding the abilities of women and racial minorities; thus, in addition to academic performance, stereotype threat is likely to influence leadership performance of minorities and women.

Stereotype activation effects have primarily been seen in diminished task performance and disidentification with the academic domain. However, leadership effectiveness is very broad and many outcomes have been used as effectiveness criteria. For example, group performance, survival, satisfaction with the leader, psychological well-being, and leader retention of status have all been used in different cases (Yukl, 1989). Additional variables that may be affected by stereotype activation are the leader's perceptions of how well she performed and her anxiety levels going into the task. Indeed, these variables could potentially then have great influence on other leadership effectiveness measures and domain identification. That is, if an individual perceived that she performed poorly on a leadership task, that may contribute to her disidentification with the domain of leadership.

SELF-EFFICACY

While cultural stereotypes are likely to have an impact on the leadership performance of non-traditional leaders, the level of the leader’s confidence, or self-efficacy, in the leadership role will likely play a part in determining the effect that the stereotype activation will have. An extensive literature on self-efficacy reveals the powerful role that efficacy can play in influencing both motivation and performance (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy is a key construct derived from Bandura’s social-cognitive theory (1986) and plays a crucial role in linking ability with performance. Self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments.” (Bandura, 1997, p. 3). According to Bandura, “people process, weigh, and integrate diverse sources of information concerning their capability, and they regulate their choice behavior and effort expenditure accordingly” (p. 212).

Empirical studies of self-efficacy have yielded some consistent findings. A substantial literature shows that feelings about self-efficacy influence what people choose to do, their persistence in the face of difficulties, and how much effort they put forth (Bandura, 1982; Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bandura & Wood, 1989). Efficacy beliefs have also been shown to influence thought patterns (whether individuals think optimistically or pessimistically, erratically or strategically) and stress reactions (Bandura, 1986). Appraisal of self-efficacy is also associated with work-related performances including life insurance sales (Barling & Beattie, 1983), faculty research productivity (Taylor, Locke, Lee, & Gist, 1984), learning and achievement (Campbell & Hackett, 1986), career choice (Lent, Brown, & Larkin, 1987) and adaptability to new technology (Hill, Smith, & Mann, 1987). Bandura has shown that feelings of self-efficacy act as a cognitive mediator of performance (1982; 1997). In summary, a high evaluation of one’s own efficacy is an important motivational construct that influences choices, goals, effort, coping, persistence, and performance.

Leadership efficacy refers to feeling confident in a leadership situation or in one’s general ability to lead (Murphy, 1992). Bandura (1997) has asserted that self-efficacy is quite domain specific; thus, self-efficacy for leadership, not generalized self-esteem or positive affect, should relate to leadership effectiveness. Initial investigations into the role of leadership efficacy in predicting leadership, group, and organizational outcomes have shown promise (Chemers, Watson, & May, 2000; Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 1996; Murphy, 2001). Chemers, Watson, and May (2000) found that leadership efficacy of Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets was strongly related to leadership ratings by superior officers, peers, and trained observers. In two additional field studies, ratings of leadership efficacy were positively related to rated leadership performance (Murphy, Chemers, Kohles, & Macaulay, 2000). In another study investigating the effects of leadership efficacy on team performance among women’s and men’s college basketball teams, efficacy was found to be a better predictor of group performance than more frequently used predictors such as the previous year’s win-loss record, number of returning lettered players or players out for the team (Watson, Chemers, & Preiser, 1996).

While self-efficacy has not been shown to mediate the performance debilitating effects of stereotype threat in previous research (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999), my research colleagues and I believe that self-efficacy for leadership will be effective in moderating the effect of stereotype threat. That is, we believe that individuals who are highly confident in their leadership abilities will be less adversely affected by stereotype activation. Indeed, stereotype activation may serve to increase the effectiveness of confident women leaders while it might decrease the effectiveness of less confident leaders. While Steele and colleagues suggest that the degree of stereotype threat may differ as a function of an individual’s perception of their ability to cope with the threat, we go further to suggest that stereotype activation may actually be empowering to individuals who are highly confident in the domain.

COGNITIVE APPRAISALS

One approach to understanding the potentially contradictory effects of stereotype activation on confident and non-confident women is to examine the cognitive appraisals the leaders make in stressful situations. According to the biopsychosocial (BPS) model of arousal regulation, challenge and threat are psychological states an individual may experience in a specific situation that have affective, cognitive, and motivational components (Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). When in a motivated performance situation, such as a leadership situation, individuals need to gauge, or make appraisals of, two things: the demands of the situation (demand appraisals) and their resources (resource appraisals). When making demand appraisals, individuals assess the required effort, danger, or uncertainty in the situation. Resource appraisals, on the other hand, involve the individual assessing her or his knowledge or skills relevant to the particular situation. The psychological states of challenge and threat occur from the interplay of demand and resource appraisals. When a leader’s resource appraisals meet or exceed his or her demand appraisals, the leader will feel challenged; however, when his or her resource appraisals fail to meet the demand appraisals the leader will feel threatened.

In the face of negative stereotypes, women who are highly confident in their leadership abilities may appraise their resources as outweighing the demands of the situations while less confident women may see the demands of the situation as outweighing their resources; thus, highly confident women will be challenged and less confident women will be threatened. It is through these cognitive appraisals of challenge and threat that stereotype activation may serve to undermine the effectiveness of women low in leadership efficacy and increase the achievement of highly efficacious female leaders.

EMPIRICAL SUPPORT

Currently, my colleagues and I are undertaking a line of research to fully explore the relationship between stereotype threat, leadership efficacy and various leadership outcomes for women leaders. Preliminary empirical evidence supports the notion that stereotype activation plays an important role in both augmenting and impairing achievement in the leadership domain. Specifically, stereotype activation had opposite effects on confident and non-confident women’s perceived performance, identification with leadership, and anxiety. For highly confident women the stereotype served to increase both their perception of their leadership performance and their identification with the domain and decrease their anxiety before leading a group. In contrast, the less confident women perceived that they performed more poorly as leaders, identified less with the leadership domain, and were more anxious before leading a group after being presented with the negative stereotype. Additionally, Murphy, Faller, Boyd, & Hogue (2001) found that when threatened, female leaders high in leadership efficacy were more comfortable in the leadership situation than those lower in leadership efficacy. These results suggest that stereotype activation serves to challenge highly efficacious women and threaten less confident women.

Although this research is in its initial stages, we are currently undertaking a comprehensive research program. We are exploring the effects of stereotype threat on actual leadership performance and we are extending our work to examine the effects of these stereotypes on male leaders. Additionally, we are attempting to identify individual and situational factors that influence the effects that stereotype activation will have on women's leadership effectiveness; for example, we are interested in determining if the gender composition of the group being led influences reactions to stereotype activation.

THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

The theoretical and practical implications of these findings and this line of research are considerable. First, we are extending the understanding of stereotype threat effects outside of the academic domain; our research will help determine the role that stereotype threat plays in the domain of leadership. While investigation into the role stereotype activation plays within other domains such as decision task performance has begun (Leyens, Desert, Croizet, & Darcis, 2000), understanding the true generalizability of the theory of stereotype threat is in its infancy. Next, a true understanding of the nature of stereotype threat should include an insight into the moderators of the effect; we are interested in investigating the moderating role of self-efficacy. Previous research has suggested a number of moderators of stereotype threat. For example, both domain identification and identification with the group to which the negative stereotype applies have been shown to moderate reactions to stereotype activation (Aronson, Lustina, Good, & Keaugh, 1999; Schmader, 2002). Our research will test the notion that individuals’ level of self-efficacy for the domain in question, in this case, leadership, will moderate reactions to stereotype threat. While understanding the deleterious aspects of stereotype activation is very important, an equally important advancement of this work includes understanding that, at times, stereotypes may actually be empowering.

This research fits within Murphy's (2001) self-regulative model of leadership that identifies the process by which leaders enact the leadership role. This model highlights the importance of the leader's assessment of his or her skills and adequacy to fulfill the role of leader and it also identifies the role of situational challenges. These situational challenges can affect the leader's assessment of his or her abilities to lead in the situation; this assessment is largely governed by the leader's self-efficacy for leadership. Our research suggests that being confronted with the situational stressor of negative societal stereotypes has differing effects depending on the leader’s level of self-efficacy for leadership. Our initial research suggests that negative stereotypes regarding women's leadership abilities enhances perceived performance, identification with leadership, and lowers anxiety for women highly confident in their leadership abilities while the opposite is true for women low in leadership efficacy.

With this line of research, we hope to not only provide important contributions to social psychological theory, but also attain a practical understanding of the unique challenges that face women in the realm of leadership. The deleterious effects of stereotype activation may in part help explain the gender gap in top leadership roles. Specifically, women with low levels of efficacy for leadership appear to be hindered by negative stereotypes regarding their leadership abilities; these stereotypes may not only hurt their performance, but the importance they place on leadership appears to also be adversely affected. Thus, these stereotypes may serve to not only hinder women’s leadership performance, but they might also lessen their desire to occupy the leadership role. Additionally, this line of research highlights the possible counterintuitive empowering effects of negative stereotypes on highly efficacious female leaders. These findings may help explain recent empirical findings that suggest that women fare better than men on measures of leadership effectiveness (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). Although these effectiveness findings can be interpreted in a number of ways including that women may have to meet a higher standard than men, the empowering effects of stereotype activation on confident women leaders may also help to explain these findings.

REFERENCES