Organizational Culture Mitigates Lower Ratings of Female Supervisors

Abstract

The present study addresses a lack of literature examining contextual factors when investigating gender norms and leader effectiveness. Supervisor–subordinate dyads were assessed for gender dissimilarity effects on ratings of leadership effectiveness. The effect of organizational culture as a moderating force on these effects was also investigated. Results bolster relational demography theory, such that supervisors who fit existing norms (i.e., male supervisors) were rated higher than supervisors that do not (i.e., female supervisors). However, lower ratings for female supervisors were mitigated by effective organizational cultures.

Keywords

female leadership relational demography gender differences leadership effectiveness organizational culture

While women have made up ground in their representation in managerial positions (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010), the fact remains that women are still highly underrepresented in the upper echelons of organizations. The term “glass ceiling” (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009; U.S. Department of Labor, 1991) describes this phenomenon of women routinely facing an upward battle in their aspirations of obtaining managerial and executive-level positions, especially in roles that engender a masculine stereotype (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Negative effects of the glass ceiling include disadvantages in terms of selection (Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015), promotion (Ortiz-Walters, Schneider, Sheikh, & Simione, 2012), and perceptions of effectiveness of performance (Thoroughgood, Sawyer, & Hunter, 2013).

The present study is rooted in stereotype research generally and relational demography theory specifically. Researchers continue to study the disparity between male and female leaders, reasons for the lack of females in the top levels of organizations, and how females are evaluated once they break the glass ceiling. However, one perspective has not received much attention: the gender congruence between supervisors and their subordinates (i.e., relational norms) together with the role of contextual factors (i.e., organizational culture). This article aims to (a) answer questions around whether female leaders are still perceived as less effective than male leaders; (b) determine if, consistent with past research, norms regarding males as leaders affect ratings of female leaders; and (c) extend theory by examining contextual factors, specifically the extent to which organizational culture may mitigate or exacerbate negative evaluations of female leaders.

Stereotypes of Male and Female Leaders

In a recent publication comparing the stereotypes of males and females from 1983 to 2014, Haines, Deaux, and Lofaro (2016) concluded that, with one exception, stereotypes have remained consistent. The exception? Females today are stereotyped more in terms of gender roles than they were three decades ago. With regard to leadership, males are commonly stereotyped as leaders, while females are not (Eagly & Karau, 2002; V. E. Schein, 1975). In fact, even when female leaders are perceived as competent as male leaders, they still face backlash in the form of bias and are less liked than male leaders (Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). In 1973, V. E. Schein proposed that individuals create prototypes of what an effective leader should be. Lord, Foti, and De Vader (1984) expanded on the idea of effective leadership profiles (i.e., implicit leadership theory), and suggested that individuals develop prototypes of an ideal leader based on experience with various leaders (Epitropaki & Martin, 2005). Indeed, research suggests the general male prototype more strongly relates to that of a successful leader prototype (e.g., Heilman, 2012; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989; Junker & van Dick, 2014; V. E. Schein, 1973, 1975).

More recent studies suggest that while there may be a perceived male advantage, the effect might be more complex than originally thought. This notion has been supported by the likes of Eagly and Carli (2003, 2007) who assert that the context of the organization (e.g., power distance, gender composition), societal norms, and organizational norms are causing the prescribed leadership roles of the past to change. In turn, compared with how female leaders were viewed in the past, female leaders today are looked at differently and in a more favorable regard (Duehr & Bono, 2006), though this effect is further complicated by the perceived masculinity/femininity of leaders in certain industries (e.g., Cabrera, Sauer, & Thomas-Hunt, 2009). Furthermore, the literature on leadership ratings is dependent on who is providing the ratings. Overall, early research on the discrepancies between stereotypes and perceived effectiveness of male and female leaders allude to a predominately masculine preference. Over time, it seems, these preferences have been diluted (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Not only that, but there seem to be variables that moderate preferences and ratings of female leaders (Duehr & Bono, 2006; Eagly & Carli, 2007). Relational demography theory may help better understand these complexities, as it focuses less on the descriptive and prescriptive roles of leaders by gender and focuses more on the interaction between gender (dis)similarity and context to explain leadership ratings.

Relational Demography Theory

Relational demography is the study of demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) that aid in the understanding of group similarities and dissimilarities, and their effects on various organizational outcomes (Bakar & McCann, 2014; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). According to researchers (e.g., Lau, Lam, & Salamon, 2008), prescribed categories (i.e., relational norms) influence individuals’ perceptions of others. In the present study, we focus on subordinates’ perceptions of effectiveness based on the gendered nature of the supervisor–subordinate dyad.

According to the relational-norm approach of relational demography, the outcomes of demographic (dis)similarity are largely contingent on social or cultural norms (Lau et al., 2008). Said another way, when the demographic characteristics of a group or dyad fit the societal, cultural, or organizational norm, there is status congruence, and a more positive relationship between a supervisor and subordinate will likely ensue (Lawrence, 1984). When these groups or dyads do not fit the norm, there is status incongruence within the group, and a less positive relationship will likely follow (Goldberg, Riordan, & Zhang, 2008). These statuses or roles are based on shared beliefs of society, that is, normative perceptions about what is expected by someone with a particular demographic attribute. Years of research support the notion that perceptions about how one gender, especially females, ought to act influence ratings (Koch et al., 2015).

In terms of the present study, it is expected that gender differences in dyads result in differential ratings, but also that those ratings depend on the pairing within the supervisor–subordinate dyad. Specific to individuals’ profiles of an ideal leader aligning more closely with a male, it is expected that demographic dissimilarities will have a positive influence on supervisor effectiveness ratings only when that dissimilarity in the dyad fits a societal or organizational norm.

Scant research has been done to understand the complexities of the relational-norm approach to relational demography research, especially within a gendered context (for an exception, see Goldberg et al., 2008). As such, it is important to test the role of gender in dyads on leadership ratings and determine which contexts may help shape these perceptions of effectiveness. Though previous research has educated our understanding of these relationships, there is still a gap in the literature. Our aim is to address this gap and aid in the understanding of how the gender of supervisors and subordinates interact with various norms to predict perceptions of supervisor effectiveness. Consistent with the research reviewed above, we expect to find context of the dyad to act as a relational norm and affect subordinates’ ratings of their supervisors. Namely, we expected that supervisors in dyads that are consistent with relational norms about males as leaders would be rated as more effective than supervisors in dyads that are inconsistent with relational norms about males as leaders. Thus, the following hypotheses are presented:

Hypothesis 1a: Effectiveness ratings given by female subordinates under male supervisors will be higher than effectiveness ratings given by male subordinates under female supervisors.

Hypothesis 1b: Effectiveness ratings given by male subordinates under male supervisors will be higher than effectiveness ratings given by female subordinates under female supervisors.

Organizational Culture as a Moderator

Relational demography research is not without its criticism. That is, the crux of this research is that it assumes an intervening variable, yet often does not directly measure any (Lawrence, 1997). Instead of assuming an intervening variable, and consistent with previous research integrating organizational context into the study of perceived gendered differences in leadership effectiveness, we argue that contextual factors (specifically organizational culture) may moderate the relationship between gender contrasts and leadership effectiveness ratings. In doing so, we argue that traditional gender norms are less important in organizations with a more effective culture and, thus, may affect how supervisors are rated in such organizations. Analyzing culture as a boundary condition is consistent with calls from leadership theorists and researchers for investigations into how context plays into leadership. Dinh et al. (2014), in the review of trends and changing perspectives in leadership, state: “ . . . while progress has been made, we still consider [contextual factors in which leaders operate] to be an under-researched topic, given the central importance of context to the emergence and manifestation of leadership processes.”

Organizational culture is commonly defined as the shared set of values, beliefs, and assumptions held by the constituents within an organization (E. H. Schein, 1992). It is these values, beliefs, and assumptions that provide a roadmap for leaders’ behaviors (Hartnell & Walumbwa, 2010) and, accordingly, followers’ perceptions of those behaviors. Indeed, research shows that culture plays into the beliefs of employees regarding how effective leaders ought to behave as well as leaders perceived effectiveness (e.g., Kirkman, Chen, Farh, Chen, & Lowe, 2009).

Certain culture models take a prescriptive (rather than descriptive) approach that measures culture in terms of cultural effectiveness, where higher culture scores suggest greater cultural and thus organizational effectiveness (Denison & Mishra, 1995). There is considerable support for these models of culture, finding that higher culture scores are related to better organizational performance (e.g., Boyce, Nieminen, Gillespie, Ryan, & Denison, 2015). Relatedly, effective leadership is also inextricably tied to organizational culture (e.g., Judge, Piccolo, & Ilies, 2004).

Given the importance of (a) context in the relational demography literature and (b) the relationships between culture, leadership, and organizational effectiveness, we expect organizational culture to moderate the relationship between both of the abovementioned gender contrasts and perceptions of leadership effectiveness as rated by supervisors’ subordinates. We expect that organizations with stronger shared perceptions of an effective culture likely have fewer barriers for supervisors in dyads that do not fit traditional norms about males as leaders. As organizational culture scores increase, we anticipate supervisors in nonnormative dyads (i.e., female supervisors rated by male subordinates or female subordinates) to be rated higher.

Hypothesis 2a: Perceptions of cultural effectiveness will moderate the relationship between the female supervisor–male subordinate versus male supervisor–female subordinate contrast and subordinate ratings of supervisor effectiveness such that female supervisors are rated higher in organizations with more effective cultures.

Hypothesis 2b: Perceptions of cultural effectiveness will moderate the relationship between the male supervisor–male subordinate versus female supervisor–female subordinate contrast and subordinate ratings of supervisor effectiveness such that female supervisors are rated higher in organizations with more effective cultures.

However, due to the scant theoretical or empirical evidence to bolster differential effectiveness ratings by dimensions of culture, we do not make hypotheses about specific culture dimensions. Because we thought it important to investigate such relationships, we, instead, pose the research question of which organizational culture dimensions moderate the relationship between gender contrasts and leadership effectiveness ratings.

Research Question 1: Which aspects of organizational culture moderate the relationship between supervisor–subordinate gender dyads and leadership effectiveness scores?

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants in this study were selected from a larger, global archival data set consisting of nearly 14,000 supervisors from approximately 1,000 organizations who had completed the Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey (DGLES). Supervisors were invited to participate in the survey via e-mail at which time they were also given the option to invite additional raters (i.e., their supervisor(s), direct report(s), peer(s), and other raters deemed appropriate) to rate their performance. Because the primary interest of the current study was ratings of supervisors as provided by direct reports, only those ratings were analyzed.

From the larger database of leaders, only those in organizations whose members had also completed the Denison Organizational Culture Survey (DOCS), the culture survey used in this study, were included. As a result, the final data set consisted of 3,510 supervisors being rated by 12,374 direct reports from 87 organizations. Of these supervisors, 11,497 reported their gender (77.7% male). Each supervisor had, on average, 3.53 direct reports (SD = 1.77) rate their effectiveness. The gender breakdown for the direct reports were 4,614 females and 7,760 males. In total, dyadic pairs were consistent with the notion of a male leadership norm. See Tables 1 and 2 for a breakdown of dyad representation and additional demographic information for those supervisors who provided such data.

Table 1.

Breakdown of Dyadic Pairs.

Dyadic pair	n
Female supervisor–female subordinate	1,012
Female supervisor–male subordinate	1,555
Male supervisor–male subordinate	6,247
Male supervisor–female subordinate	2,682

Table 2.

Leaders Demographic Information.

	Female		Male
	n	%	n	%
Age, years
Under 20	1	0.04	3	0.03
20-29	419	16.32	922	10.32
30-39	922	35.92	3,184	35.66
40-49	671	26.14	2,816	31.53
50-59	413	16.09	1,548	17.33
60 or over	66	2.57	228	2.55
Organization level
Nonmanagement	1,155	44.99	2,515	28.16
Line management	557	21.70	2,273	25.45
Middle management	433	16.87	2,194	24.57
Senior management	148	5.77	1,063	11.90
Executive/senior vice president	12	0.47	168	1.88
Chief executive officer/president	4	0.16	11	0.12
Owner	2	0.08	7	0.08
Tenure
Less than 6 months	114	4.44	373	4.18
6 Months to 1 year	185	7.21	557	6.24
1 to 2 Years	313	12.19	856	9.59
2 to 4 Years	428	16.67	1,382	15.48
4 to 6 Years	314	12.23	1,155	12.93
6 to 10 Years	438	17.06	1,432	16.04
10 to 15 Years	272	10.60	1,200	13.44
More than 15 years	358	13.95	1,600	17.92
Education
High school	150	5.84	516	5.78
Some college	340	13.25	762	8.53
Associate’s/technical degree	171	6.66	610	6.83
Bachelor’s degree	843	32.84	2,645	29.62
Some graduate work	190	7.40	634	7.10
Master’s degree	578	22.52	2,688	30.10
Doctoral degree	104	4.05	451	5.05
Function
Finance and accounting	303	11.80	1,135	12.71
Engineering	87	3.39	1,050	11.76
Manufacturing and production	90	3.51	800	8.96
Research and development	125	4.87	528	5.91
Sales and marketing	366	14.26	1,608	18.01
Purchasing	43	1.68	254	2.84
Human resources	229	8.92	357	4.00
Administration	218	8.49	567	6.35
Support staff	254	9.89	515	5.77
Professional staff	517	20.14	1,256	14.06
Ethnicity
Asian	226	8.80	1,081	12.11
African American	64	2.49	178	1.99
Hispanic	70	2.73	242	2.71
White/Caucasian	1,527	59.49	4,800	53.75

Data for perceptions of organizational culture were taken from the organizations from which the supervisors worked. In total, culture scores were gathered from 24,420 employees across the 87 organizations in the sample. The average number of employees across organizations was 283.95 (SD = 587.97), while the median was 104.00 employees per organization. Organizational culture data were either census (i.e., all members surveyed) or representative of the organization as a whole (i.e., randomly sampled across organizational units). Organizations represented a diverse range of sectors and industries. As explained in more detail below, female representation in each industry ranged from 5.20% to 76.80%.

Measures

Relational Demography

In order to test relational norms, it was necessary to first create dyadic pairing consistent with our hypotheses. That is, we coded dyadic pairs specific to the contrasts we were testing. This method of analysis was selected over an analysis of variance framework with supervisor gender, subordinate gender, and the interaction between them as predictors of effectiveness because such a framework fails to account for important normative information specific to dyadic pairs. Others have taken a similar approach to the study of relational norms (e.g., Tsui, Porter, & Egan, 2002).

Denison Organizational Culture Survey

Culture was measured using the DOCS (Denison & Neale, 1996). The DOCS was born out of a line of research by Denison et al. in which organizational culture was linked to organizational effectiveness (Denison, 1984; Denison & Mishra, 1995; Fey & Denison, 2003). More specifically, the DOCS was designed as a prescriptive measure of culture. Participants rated 60 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The items fit within 12 lower order indexes nested within four higher order traits (Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission). For the sake of this study, culture was measured as the aggregate of trait-level factors. An example item of Involvement is “Most employees are highly involved in their work.” An example item of Consistency is “The leaders and managers ‘practice what they preach.’” An example item of Adaptability is “The way things are done is very flexible and easy to change.” And finally, an example item of Mission is “There is a long-term purpose and direction.” In the current sample, scale reliability (α) estimates for each of the higher order culture traits were as follows: Involvement = .91, Consistency = .89, Adaptability = .86, and Mission = .92.

Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey

The outcome variable for this study was leadership effectiveness, which was assessed using subordinates’ ratings of their supervisors on the DGLES. The DGLES is a seven-item Likert-type measure assessing descriptive leadership effectiveness. Responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Though the DGLES has never been used in peer-reviewed research, use of ad hoc leadership effectiveness scales is not uncommon (e.g., Bono & Ilies, 2006; Edelman & van Knippenberg, 2017; Kerr, Garvin, Heaton, & Boyle, 2006). In the current sample, coefficient α estimates for the DGLES were adequate (α = .96), and interitem correlations ranged from r = .67 to r = .86.

In addition to tests of internal consistency, we also conducted a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (c.f. Hox, 1993) on the DGLES. Results from the multilevel CFA indicate that the seven items adequately fit a one-factor structure (χ² = 935.23, degrees of freedom = 28; root mean square error of approximation = .05; comparative fit index = .98).

Control Variables

Three variables were used as covariates in the present study: organizational level, tenure with organization, and percentage of women in the industry. We controlled for these three variables because recent studies (e.g., Ko, Kotrba, & Roebuck, 2015; Paustian-Underdahl, Walker, & Woehr, 2014) found gender differences on ratings of leadership effectiveness across those measures. To calculate percentage of females within each industry, we matched industry data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2017) to the corresponding North American Industry Classification System industry codes provided by the U.S. Census Bureau (2017).

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 3. Please note that the correlations reported are at the individual level and do not consider the nested structure of the data.

Table 3.

Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations of Model Variables.

Measures	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. MF vs. FM gender dyad	0.41	0.72
2. MM vs. FF gender dyad	0.15	0.55	−.15**
3. Percentage of female	0.34	0.20	−.24**	.03**
4. Organizational level	2.20	1.12	.25**	−.07**	−.02
5. Organizational tenure	5.17	2.01	.10**	−.04**	−.07**	.16**
6. Involvement culture	3.53	0.29	−.04**	.04**	.05**	.09**	.00	(.91)
7. Consistency culture	3.40	0.29	−.04**	.03**	.18**	.10**	.00	.89**	(.89)
8. Adaptability culture	3.28	0.28	−.09**	.05**	.35**	.06**	−.04**	.86**	.88**	(.86)
9. Mission culture	3.52	0.30	.00	.02*	−.07**	.12**	.02*	.85**	.86**	.71**	(.92)
10. DGLES	5.94	1.09	−.05**	.01	.06**	.01	−.06**	.07**	.08**	.10**	.04**	(.96)

Note. MF = male–female; FM = female–male; MM = male–male; FF = female–female; DGLES = Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey. Reliabilities in parentheses are reported along the diagonal.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Analysis

Due to the nested, nonindependent structure of the data, that is, multiple subordinates rating supervisors across organizations, all hypotheses were tested using hierarchical linear modeling (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Analyses suggest that 34% of the variance in effectiveness ratings are due to supervisor of the subordinate, intraclass correlation coefficient(1) = .34, and that subordinates sharing the same supervisor rated similarly (mean r_wg(j) = .91). Moreover, organizations account for between 12% and 16% of the variance in culture scores, with adequate within-organization agreement (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Variance and Agreement Statistics.

Culture trait	ICC(1)	Mean r_wg(j)
Involvement	.13	.94
Consistency	.12	.94
Adaptability	.13	.94
Mission	.16	.94

Note. ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient.

Hypothesis 1a testing the relational-norm approach to relational demography predicted that female subordinates would rate their male supervisors higher than male subordinates would rate their female supervisors. Results of this hypothesis were supported (γ = −.05, p = .01; see Table 5). Hypothesis 1b predicted that male subordinates would rate their male supervisors higher than female subordinates would rate their female supervisors. Results suggest no significant difference between the male supervisor–male subordinate dyads and the female supervisor–female subordinate dyads (γ = .03, p = .14). Thus, Hypothesis 1b was not supported.

Table 5.

Results of HLM Analyses: Effects of FM and MF Dyads on Ratings of DGLES.

	DGLES
	Estimate	SE	t ratio
Level 1 predictors
Intercept	6.00	0.04	135.72**
FM vs. MF Dyads (Hypothesis 1a)	−0.05	0.02	−2.74**
Percentage of female	0.31	0.07	4.19**
Organizational level	0.00	0.01	0.74
Organizational tenure	−0.03	0.01	−5.92**
R ²		.04

Note. HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; SE = standard error; DGLES = Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey. MF (male supervisor–female subordinate) dyads were coded “1.” FM (female supervisor–male subordinate) dyads were coded “−1.” The DGLES is rated on a 7-point scale.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that perceptions of effective organizational culture would moderate the relationship between the male supervisor–female subordinate versus female supervisor–male subordinate contrast and leadership effectiveness ratings such that female supervisors are rated higher in organizations with more effective cultures. We hypothesized that subordinates in female supervisor–male subordinate dyads would report higher leadership effectiveness ratings in organizations with higher culture scores than they would in organizations with lower culture scores.

Results of the Hypothesis 2a comparison suggest that two of the four culture traits act as moderators. Male subordinates rated their female supervisors higher in organizations with effective Involvement (γ = −.10, p = .09¹) and Mission (γ = −.10, p = .07) culture, as opposed to organizations with low scores for Involvement or Mission culture. Therefore, Hypothesis 2a was partially supported, with perceptions of Involvement (see Table 6; Figure 1) and Mission (see Table 7; Figure 2) acting as moderators for the relationship between gender contrast and leadership effectiveness ratings.

Table 6.

Results of HLM Analyses: Effects of MF and FM Dyads on Ratings of DGLES as Moderated by Ratings of Involvement Culture.

	DGLES
	Estimate	SE	t ratio
Level 1 predictors
Intercept	5.03	0.19	26.75**
FM vs. MF dyads	0.29	0.20	1.45
Percentage of female	0.30	0.07	4.09**
Organizational level	0.00	0.01	0.01
Organizational tenure	−0.03	0.01	−6.02**
Cross-level interaction
Dyad × Involvement Culture (Hypothesis 2a)	−0.10	0.06	−1.68^†
R ²		.05

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 1.

Cross-level moderating effect of organizational involvement culture on the relationship between FM (female supervisor–male subordinate) compared with MF (male supervisor–female subordinate) dyads and DGLES (Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey).

Table 7.

Results of HLM Analyses: Effects of MM and FF Dyads on Ratings of DGLES as Moderated by Ratings of Mission Culture.

	DGLES
	Estimate	SE	t ratio
Level 1 predictors
Intercept	5.25	0.18	28.39**
FM vs. MF dyads	0.30	0.19	1.57
Percentage of female	0.33	0.07	4.52**
Organizational level	0.00	0.01	−0.08
Organizational tenure	−0.03	0.01	−5.95**
Cross-level interaction
Dyad × Mission Culture (Hypothesis 2a)	−0.10	0.05	−1.81^†
R ²		.05

Note. HLM = hierarchical linear modeling; SE = standard error; DGLES = Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey. MM (male supervisor–male subordinate) dyads were coded “1.” FF (female supervisor–female subordinate) dyads were coded “−1.” The DGLES is rated on a 7-point scale.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

Figure 2.

Cross-level moderating effect of organizational mission culture on the relationship between FM (female supervisor–male subordinate) compared with MF (male supervisor–female subordinate) dyads and DGLES (Denison General Leadership Effectiveness Survey).

Hypothesis 2b hypothesized that culture would moderate the relationship between the male supervisor–male subordinate versus female supervisor–female subordinate contrasts and leadership effectiveness ratings. Regardless of the culture trait, perceptions of culture did not act as a moderator between supervisor–subordinate gender contrast and leadership effectiveness ratings. Thus, Hypothesis 2b was not supported.

In sum, Hypothesis 2b was partially supported, with results varying depending on the contrast in question. Culture interacted with the female supervisor–male subordinate versus male supervisor–female subordinate contrast, but not the male supervisor–male subordinate versus female supervisor–female subordinate contrast. In response to our research question, it seems different aspects of culture have varying effects on ratings of leadership effectiveness depending on the contrast.

Of note, we acknowledge that a plausible alternative explanation for our results being significant may be the result of male leaders, regardless of context (dyad or culture), being rated higher than female leaders. That is, one could reasonably argue that our significant interactions were driven by male supervisors being rated higher than female supervisors in the overall sample. To eliminate this alternative explanation, we conducted an additional follow-up analysis to test whether males were rated higher than females in the overall sample. We found no significant difference between the leadership effectiveness ratings of males (M = 5.92) compared with females (M = 6.00), t(11,495) = 3.32, p = .986. Thus, concordant with our results above, the significant finding that male supervisors are rated no differently than female supervisors lends support to the important role of context, both in supervisor–subordinate dyads and across organizational cultures.

Discussion

Females continue to face barriers that their male counterparts do not. This has been studied from multiple theoretical perspectives, but, to our knowledge, we are the first to study the lack of women in leadership positions through the interactive lens between relational norms and the cultural context of the organization.

Our first hypothesis asserted differences in ratings specific to the relational-norm hypothesis of relational demography. As expected, female supervisors were rated lower by their male subordinates than male supervisors were rated by their female subordinates. However, when comparing male supervisors rated by male subordinates with female supervisors rated by female subordinates, we failed to find support for the relational-norm hypothesis. Our results about males’ ratings of females may speak to the troubles female leaders face in attempting to break the glass ceiling. Namely, with promotions being tied to performance appraisals in many organizations, women are forced to hurdle a roadblock that their male colleagues are not (Lyness & Heilman, 2006). This result, combined with the fact that male leaders, in general, are not rated any higher than female leaders, provides support for the idea that discrimination of female leaders cuts across borders and is influenced by relational norms about males as leaders.

Although the relational-norm hypothesis held for male’s ratings of females versus female’s ratings of males, the same was not true for the comparison of male’s ratings of males to female’s ratings of females; male subordinates rate male supervisors as effective as female subordinates rate female supervisors. Though this result is not in line with our hypothesis about the effects of relational norms, it does conform to findings from less context-specific studies that suggest females are less discriminatory in their ratings of leaders (Duehr & Bono, 2006; V. E. Schein, 2001).

We also measured the extent to which organizational culture had an impact on ratings of effectiveness across both of our gender contrasts. Where female supervisors were rated lower by their male subordinates than male supervisors were rated by their female subordinates (Hypothesis 1a), adding the effect of culture yielded interesting findings. As hypothesized, organizational culture acted as an important boundary condition of the negative effects of gendered relational norms. In organizations with less effective Involvement and Mission cultures, female subordinates rate their male supervisors higher than male subordinates rate their female supervisors, but in organizations with more effective Involvement and Mission cultures, male subordinates rate their female supervisors higher than female subordinates rate their male supervisors. Similar to the main effect findings of male–male compared with female–female dyads (Hypothesis 1b), though, we found no support for culture as a moderator with that contrast.

Implications for Research

Taken as a whole, the implications of our research are twofold. First, it seems that males still perceive female leaders as less effective than they perceive male leaders. Considering all raters together (i.e., devoid of context), female supervisors were rated just as effective as male supervisors. However, as our results show, when considering the dyadic nature of the supervisor–subordinate relationship and organizational culture in which those dyads are embedded (i.e., contextual variables), results suggest male subordinates rate female supervisors lower than female subordinates rate male supervisors.

Second, by introducing organizational culture as a contextual variable in the relationship between supervisor–subordinate dyad and leadership effectiveness ratings, we show that culture may be able to mitigate some of the negative effects of the ways female leaders are rated. By accepting the call of previous researchers to include contextual variables in the study of leadership (e.g., Day, 2001; Dinh et al., 2014), we provide initial evidence that organizational culture is an important contextual variable that acts as a boundary condition for how leaders are perceived in different supervisor–subordinate dyads. Generally speaking, and considering the gendered nature of the supervisor–subordinate dyad, the more effective the culture, the more favorable female supervisors are viewed. These findings have important implications for practice, especially for organizational leaders seeking to enact change.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study, though providing a new lens in which to observe gender discrepancies in leadership and observing a boundary condition for those negative ratings, is not without limitations. One limitation of the study is the cross-sectional, archival nature of the study. Unfortunately, we were limited in our access to certain data that would have made our study stronger. Another limitation is that this study measured only one demographic variable with regard to relational demography. Also, we used a prescriptive measure of culture (i.e., the DOCS). Other researchers might use descriptive measures of culture.

Organizational culture is typically measured at a very broad level (c.f. Hartnell, Ou, & Kinicki, 2011). Thus, we were limited by the lack of a priori rationale for each of the individual culture traits. Where we did find the Involvement and Mission culture traits to moderate the relationship between supervisor–subordinate dyad and leadership effectiveness ratings, we failed to find support for the intervening effect of Consistency or Adaptability culture traits. Future studies could benefit from a more fine-grained lens of organizational culture to better assess how specific aspects culture affects employee perceptions. For example, one might assess how various values differentially affect male and female employee’s perceptions of their leaders’ effectiveness.

Conclusions

Our study shows that gender in supervisor–subordinate dyads matters when predicting leadership effectiveness ratings. The primary contribution of this article was the identification of contextual boundary conditions between gendered dyads and leadership effectiveness ratings. Specifically, we found that the negative perceptions of female leaders by male subordinates may be mitigated when an organization has a more effective Involvement or Mission culture. We suggest that organizations wishing to improve perceptions of female leaders, and possibly increase the number of female leaders, work on improving their cultures especially with regard to Involvement and Mission.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Adam Roebuck is doctoral student studying I/O psychology at Roosevelt University. His main research intersts include teams, multilevel theory, social networks, and leadership.

Adrian Thomas is currently The Helford Endowed Chair of Psychology at Roosevelt University. His main research interests include discrimination against workers with disabilities, women in leadership, and securing equal employment protections for members of the LBGTQ community.

Benjamin Biermeier-Hanson is currently an assistant professor of I/O psychology at Radford University. His main research interests include leadership through a variety of theoretical lenses, organizational culture, and personality congruence in the workplace.

References

Bakar

H. A.

McCann

R. M.

(2014). Matters of demographic similarity and dissimilarity in supervisor–subordinate relationships and workplace attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 1-16. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.04.004

Barreto

Ryan

M. K.

Schmitt

M. T.

(Eds.). (2009). The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bono

J. E.

Ilies

(2006). Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 317-334. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.04.008

Boyce

A. S.

Nieminen

L. R.

Gillespie

M. A.

Ryan

A. M.

Denison

D. R.

(2015). Which comes first, organizational culture or performance? A longitudinal study of causal priority with automobile dealerships. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 339-359. doi:10.1002/job.1985

Bryk

A. S.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cabrera

S. F.

Sauer

S. J.

Thomas-Hunt

M. C.

(2009). The evolving manager stereotype: The effects of industry gender typing on performance expectations for leaders and their teams. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 419-428. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01519.x

Day

D. V.

(2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8

Denison

D. R.

(1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13(2), 5-22.

Denison

D. R.

Mishra

(1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organizational Science, 6, 204-223. doi:10.1287/orsc.6.2.204

10.

Denison

D. R.

Neale

W. S.

(1996). Denison Organizational Culture Survey. Ann Arbor. MI: Aviat.

11.

Dinh

J. E.

Lord

R. G.

Gardner

W. L.

Meuser

J. D.

Liden

R. C.

(2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 36-62. Retrieved from http://dro.dur.ac.uk/11980/1/11980.pdf

12.

Duehr

E. E.

Bono

J. E.

(2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59, 815-846. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00055.x

13.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

(2003). The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004

14.

Eagly

A. H.

Carli

L. L.

(2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

15.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

(2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573

16.

Eagly

A. H.

Karau

S. J.

Makhijani

M. G.

(1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125-145. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.125

17.

Edelman

P. J.

van Knippenberg

(2017). Training leader emotion regulation and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 747-757. doi:10.1007/s10869-016-9471-8

18.

Epitropaki

Martin

(2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 659-676. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659

19.

Fey

Denison

D. R.

(2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can an American theory be applied in Russia? Organization Science, 14, 686-706. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.6.686.24868

20.

Goldberg

Riordan

C. M.

Zhang

(2008). Employees’ perceptions of their leaders: Is being similar always better? Group & Organization Management, 33, 330-355. doi:10.1177/1059601108318232

21.

Haines

E. L.

Deaux

Lofaro

(2016). The times they are a-changing . . . or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353-363. doi:10.1177/0361684316634081

22.

Hartnell

C. A.

A. Y.

Kinicki

(2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677-694. doi:10.1037/a0023086

23.

Hartnell

C. A.

Walumbwa

F. O.

(2010). Transformational leadership and organizational culture. In Ashkanasy

N. M.

Wilderom

C. P. M.

Peterson

M. F.

(Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 225-248). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

24.

Heilman

M. E.

(2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113-135. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003

25.

Heilman

M. E.

Block

C. J.

Martell

R. F.

Simon

M. C.

(1989). Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.74.6.935

26.

Hox

J. J.

(1993). Factor analysis of multilevel data: Gauging the Muthén model. In Oud

J. H. L.

van Blokland-Vogelesang

R. A. W.

(Eds.), Advances in longitudinal and multivariate analysis in the behavioral sciences (pp. 141-156). Nijmegen, Netherlands: ITS.

27.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

Ilies

(2004). The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36-51. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.36

28.

Junker

N. M.

van Dick

(2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1154-1173. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002

29.

Kerr

Garvin

Heaton

Boyle

(2006). Emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 27, 265-279. doi:10.1108/01437730610666028

30.

Kirkman

B. L.

Chen

Farh

J. L.

Chen

Z. X.

Lowe

K. B.

(2009). Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 744-764. doi:10.5465/amj.2009.43669971

31.

Kotrba

Roebuck

(2015). Leaders as males? The role of industry gender composition. Sex Roles, 72, 294-307. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0462-4

32.

Koch

A. J.

D’Mello

S. D.

Sackett

P. R.

(2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 128-161. doi:10.1037/a0036734

33.

Koenig

A. M.

Eagly

A. H.

Mitchell

A. A.

Ristikari

(2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616-642. doi:10.1037/a0023557

34.

LaHuis

D. M.

Ferguson

M. W.

(2009). The accuracy of significance tests for slope variance components in multilevel random coefficient models. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 418-435. doi:10.1177/1094428107308984

35.

Lau

D. C.

Lam

L. W.

Salamon

S. D.

(2008). The impact of relational demographics on perceived managerial trustworthiness: Similarity or norms? Journal of Social Psychology, 148, 187-208. doi:10.3200/socp.148.2.187-209

36.

Lawrence

B. S.

(1984). Age grading: The implicit organizational timetable. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5, 23-35. doi:10.1002/job.4030050104

37.

Lawrence

B. S.

(1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8, 1-22. doi:10.1287/orsc.8.1.1

38.

Lord

R. G.

Foti

R. J.

De Vader

C. L.

(1984). A test of leadership categorization theory: Internal structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 343-378. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6

39.

Lyness

K. S.

Heilman

M. E.

(2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777-785. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777

40.

Ortiz-Walters

Schneider

G. P.

Sheikh

Simione

K. A.

(2012). The glass ceiling in public accounting. In DreamCatchers Group, LLC (Ed.), Academy of Accounting and Financial Studies Proceedings (pp. 19-22). Arden, NC: DreamCatchers Group, LLC.

41.

Paustian-Underdahl

S. C.

Walker

L. S.

Woehr

D. J.

(2014). Gender and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1129-1145. doi:10.1037/a0036751

42.

Rudman

L. A.

Moss-Racusin

C. A.

Phelan

J. E.

Nauts

(2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165-179. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008

43.

Schein

E. H.

(1992). How can organizations learn faster? The problem of entering the green room. Retrieved from https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/2399/SWP-3409-45882883.pdf?sequence=1

44.

Schein

V. E.

(1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100. doi:10.1007/bf00288030

45.

Schein

V. E.

(1975). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340-344. doi:10.1037/h0076637

46.

Schein

V. E.

(2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social issues, 57, 675-688. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00235

47.

Thoroughgood

C. N.

Sawyer

K. B.

Hunter

S. T.

(2013). Real men don’t make mistakes: Investigating the effects of leader gender, error type, and the occupational context on leader error perceptions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 31-48. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9263-8

48.

Tsui

A. S.

O’Reilly

C. A.

(1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 402-423.

49.

Tsui

A. S.

Porter

L. W.

Egan

T. D.

(2002). When both similarities and dissimilarities matter: Extending the concept of relational demography. Human Relations, 55, 899-929. doi:10.1177/0018726702055008176

50.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2017). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm

51.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). North American Industry Classification System. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?chart=2017

52.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). A report on the glass ceiling initiative. Pittsburgh, PA: Superintendent of Documents.

53.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2010). Women in the labor force in 2010. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce-10.htm