Z & Y’s Perspectives

EMPORIA STATE RESEARCH STUDIES

Vol. 53, no. 1, p. 44 – 54 (2022)

_____________________________________________________________________________________ The Evolving Role of Female Leaders: A Closer Look at Generation Z & Y’s Perspectives

LESLY KROME

Department of Psychology and Counseling, Southeast Missouri State University, lkrome@semo.edu

One of the most prominent theories surrounding the sparsity of female leadership is role congruity theory (RCT) by Eagly and Karau (2002). The authors argue that women must behave in ways that are inconsistent with their traditional gender role expectations when they hold leadership positions and that this incongruency leaves followers with an unfavorable evaluation of them. This effect occurs even when women exhibit democratic leadership, a style of leadership that more closely conforms to female role expectations (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Goethals & Hoyt, 2017). However, as Generation Z enters and becomes established in today’s workplace and society, is this perspective changing? Generation Z, along with Generation Y (Millennials), are generally more progressive and more formally educated than previous generations (Parker et al., 2019), which could affect their attitudes and perspectives concerning factors within role congruity theory. Research was conducted which evaluated Generation Z and Y’s perspectives on male and female leaders demonstrating both democratic leadership behaviors and autocratic leadership behaviors. A 2 x 2 factorial MANCOVA (the covariate was participant sex) revealed that the sample of Generation Z and Y participants did not view female leaders less favorably than male leaders across both leadership styles, which contradicts RCT. Implications and discussions about female leadership bias are addressed. Keywords: women, role congruity theory, implicit leadership theory, stereotyping, democratic/autocratic leadership, Generation Z/Y

INTRODUCTION

Women facing adversity in the workplace is not a new phenomenon. Sexual harassment, discrimination, and conflicting work/non-work role expectations (to name a few examples) have been holding women back since they started to enter the workforce in mass during the mid-to-late 20th Century (Wright & Rogers, 2015). While women have only been an active part of the commercial workforce for a brief part of human history, they now make up almost half (47%) of the U.S. labor force (Department of Labor, 2019). Despite sharing the working burden approximately equally, being considered equal to their male counterparts on the job is a challenge that women continue to face. One noteworthy example is the wage gap that shows women are less valued than men in the workplace; women earned 81.2% of men’s salaries for equivalent full-time, year-round work in 2018 (US Census Bureau, 2019). This number is even lower for minority women and women with advanced degrees (US Census Bureau, 2019). So, while women have an indispensable presence in the workforce, they clearly face barriers that can negatively affect their careers. These detriments not only hurt women’s careers; they also can halt women’s advancement in the workplace and their progression to leadership roles.

A salient example can be seen in the huge discrepancy between female workers and female leaders in Fortune 500 companies. In 2019, only 33 women held a CEO position in a top Fortune 500 company (Zillman, 2019). This means that only 6.6% of top companies employed women in a major leadership position. Out of the 47% of the available female working population, why are so few women being selected to higher-ranking positions when the chances are approximately equal across the major genders? One interpretation is that women are being stymied by systematic social barriers to female leader success. These barriers can be better understood though the lens of Social Dominance Theory (SDT).

SDT recognizes that individuals separate themselves according to a group-based social hierarchy existing within the formal organization (Sidanius et al., 1991). The hierarchy is generally quite linear. There is a dominant group, which consists of individuals who possess a physical or social characteristic deemed

desirable by the organization. Those without this characteristic are kept out of the dominant group and are considered the subordinate group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The members of the dominant group police their power to ensure it stays within their group. The dominant members do this by maintaining their positive group identify and keeping the subordinate group subjugated using hierarchylegitimizing myths. Hierarchy-legitimizing myths are the beliefs and attitudes held by members of the group that support the social hierarchy by justifying the unequal treatment between the two groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).

In SDT, there are three primary systems that can be identified: an age system, an arbitrary-set system, and a gender system (e.g., patriarchy). Under the patriarchy system a disproportionate amount of social and political power is assumed by male members of the group (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Female members of the group are less favored than the male members of the group and receive leftover resources and hold less positive social identity; their perceived social value is less than that of the men (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Male (and sometimes female) members of the group perpetuate hierarchy-legitimizing myths in the organization using sexism. The members of the organization justify the systematic social inequality of the groups through this structure. In this way the female members’ abilities to demand more power and social value is suppressed.

The idea that women work for organizations that have mechanisms in place to suppress their success is concerning. However, the large discrepancy between women who have risen in organizations to achieve a position of power and women outside of positions of power provides evidence to that effect: the systematic suppression of female workers in the organization is a factor responsible for the lack of female leaders. An alternative explanation is that women do not make good leaders and that is why they are not in positions of authority, but research has not supported this supposition (Eagly et al., 1995; Goethals & Hoyt, 2017; Paustian-Underdahl et al., 2014; Van Engen & Willemsen, 2004).

This in turn begets the question of what makes a good leader? A plethora of leadership theories exist that examine factors including (but not limited to) follower preferences, leader effectiveness, leader emergence, and more (Barling et al., 2010; Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Moss & Ngu, 2006). To quickly summarize, a small but meaningful representation of some of this research found that democratic leadership styles tend to be more favorable to followers and more productive than autocratic leadership styles, under certain conditions (Foels et al., 2000; Gastil, 1994). Democratic leaders, who seek input from followers, involve followers in the decision-making process, and foster responsibility and participation from followers often have slightly more positive outcomes than autocratic leaders, who discourage follower participation and involvement in decision-making (Goethals & Hoyt, 2017). While this research only skims the surface of the leadership literature, it is important for establishing context when describing female leadership.

As previously mentioned, meta-analyses have revealed that followers often express greater satisfaction with democratic leaders, though several variables moderate this effect, such as group size and gender make-up (Foels et al., 2000; Gastil, 1994). In addition, productivity often increases when followers are led by democratic leaders in applied settings (non-laboratory or field experiment). Gastil (1994) also found that democratic leadership was more productive than autocratic leadership when followers were performing moderately to highly complex tasks. Although there are fewer female leaders than male leaders in the workplace, female leaders tend to adhere to the better-suited democratic leadership style more so than the autocratic leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). One would think that if women are more likely to adopt the advantageous democratic leadership style, they would be preferred for a leadership position. Unfortunately, data shows that is not necessarily the case. Role Congruity Theory (RCT; Eagly & Karau, 2002) helps explain why.

RCT suggests that female leaders face conflicts regarding their role expectations that contributes to the negative evaluations that they receive when in a position of power (Eagly & Karau, 2002). The conflict exists between the role expectations as a woman and the role expectations as a leader, leading to the perceived role incongruity. The effect is twofold: first, women are viewed less favorably than their male counterparts for leader roles due to specific expectations typically surrounding what a leader is; these expectations are viewed as contradictory to what the role expectations of what a woman should be. Second, when women act in a

manner consistent with typical expectations of a leader, the women are typically viewed less favorably than men for those same behaviors because of the incongruity with their gender role. This conflict requires investigation into what specific role expectations of leaders are and why they are viewed as incompatible with women’s gender role expectations.

Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT) is one perspective that can help illuminate the specific role expectations of leaders. Lord, Foti, and De Vader (1984) examined how leadership was viewed by individuals and concluded that people hold an implicit leadership theory that draws on prototypes of ideal leadership behavior; this prototype then informs individuals of what a leader is and should be. If an individual is compared to the prototype and found to match it, then the person is viewed as a leader. Offerman, Kennedy, and Wirtz (1994) then studied what the most common prototypes for a leader were. They compiled a list of eight specific traits often associated with leaders: sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, charisma, attractiveness, masculinity, intelligence, and strength. While these eight traits were found to be the most frequent prototypes for leaders, one can look at the list and see that incongruities exist between them. For example, a leader can be sensitive but also tyrannical. Does the leader need to be strong or does the leader need to be intelligent or both? If the latter, which one of these characteristics (strength or intelligence) is identified in the leader first? Despite the contradictions in the list and the questions surrounding it, these eight criteria can spark a person’s understanding of “this is what a leader is.”

The eight prototypes identified can be examined in a number of ways. Trait theory of leadership discusses how leaders are identified if they possess certain characteristics whereas the behavioral theories of leadership discuss specific actions leaders can take to invoke leader authority (Barling et al., 2010). Either of these theories and other ones can be the focus for the eight leader prototypes examined in ILT. However, looking at ILT from the perspective of social psychology’s stereotyping may be enlightening, considering the stereotypical gender role expectations expected of women under RCT.

Fisk, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) examined stereotypes and determined that two dimensions can encompass a wide range of stereotypes. Those two dimensions are warmth and competence. Fisk et al. (2002) identified four types of out-group combinations based on the aspects of warmth and competence. High warmth and low competence results in paternalistic prejudice which predicts pity and sympathy. High warmth and high competence evoke admiration and pride. Low warmth and low competence create contemptuous prejudice resulting in anger and resentment whereas low warmth and high competence creates envious prejudice seen to provoke jealousy. When looking at the common issues female leaders face, these four dimensions can provide a framework for understanding unfavorable evaluations from subordinates. Female leaders that are friendly and democratic may be perceived as less competent than male leaders due to sexism and sex stereotypes which evoke paternalistic prejudice (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Fisk et al., 2002). Women who lack warmth and are perceived as less competent will received disdain and anger (contemptuous prejudice) from others, both male and female audiences. Alternatively, the female leader who acts dominantly and forcefully may be viewed as lacking warmth but possessing competence, resulting in envious prejudice and jealousy from followers.

When a woman (or man) acts in a leadership role, are followers forming certain stereotypes based on their implicit leadership prototypes? Do these stereotypes help or hurt the female leader? While not every one of the eight prototypes from ILT can be clearly mapped into the four stereotype dimensions, some of the prototypes are intuitive. Sensitivity and dedication can be seen to have high warmth, whereas tyranny would have low warmth. Intelligence and strength can be allocated alongside high competence. Charisma may fall into high warmth and high competence. It is not clear how attractiveness and masculinity are viewed in this framework, but masculinity is most certainly considered an implied leadership trait in ILT and thus may be more associated with competence.

One of the most interesting findings from Offerman et al. (1994) is that masculinity (or simply being male) was one of the criteria that acts as a leadership prototype. This demonstrates a facet of the role incongruity that women face when attempting to reach a position of power or influence. If women act in ways that are traditionally considered masculine, then they are viewed as violating their gender role expectations. On the other hand, not acting masculine is a violation of the role expectations of being a leader. The role expectations of being a man or

woman and acting masculine or feminine derive from gender stereotypes and historical divisions of labor and responsibilities between men and women (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Women are perceived to be interpersonally oriented and men are perceived to be more action oriented (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Additionally, men have historically held most leadership positions and thus are readily associated as a leadership prototype. Because of this, a female leader may feel the need to take more action, act more aggressively, and/or be more dominant because of the association between leadership, masculinity, and these behaviors, but in doing so she violates the gender stereotype and draws the ill-will of her followers for this discrepancy.

Feminist Communication Theory (FCT; Griffin, 2009) provides further support to RCT by highlighting the difficulties women face when communicating in a “non-masculine” manner in the workplace. According to this perspective, men and women use language differently: women use more communal language, use social and emotional words more often, and ask more questions (Griffin, 2009; Hollander & Abelson, 2014). In contrast, men use action words more frequently, exert more force in their communication, and interrupt more often. Some linguists argue that language is “man-made” and has been dominated by men historically (Griffin, 2009). Women are expected to conform to the masculine style of communication, especially in the workplace, but when they do, they are often viewed as unfeminine and it is an undesirable trait (Griffin, 2009). This creates a “double-bind” due to the contradictory role expectations of women, particularly when in the workplace.

However, as the previous research has demonstrated, there are several other trait prototypes for leadership; masculinity is not the only way to convince followers a person is a strong leader. Offerman et al. (1994) found that dedication, charisma, intelligence, and sensitivity were the most salient criteria (as evaluated by participants) for the leadership prototype and all have positive connotations to them. It is also clear from this list that one does not have to be a specific gender or sex to hold these traits. There should be no incongruity between being a woman and being dedicated (disciplined or hard-working), charismatic (inspirational, dynamic), intelligent (knowledgeable, clever, educated), and sensitive (attuned, understanding) to followers’ needs. In fact, these criteria fit closely with the democratic form of leadership while only partially mapping on to the autocratic leadership style. Theoretically, women who demonstrate the democratic leadership style will activate the most relevant criteria for the leadership prototype and should be viewed positively as a leader. However, the complex relationship between leader and followers does not make for a straightforward answer.

Meta-analysis has revealed some complex relationships that naturally occurring groups (as opposed to artificial laboratory groups) have with democratic leadership. Although followers prefer democratic leaders over autocratic ones generally, as groups become more male, followers demonstrate an increasing dissatisfaction with the democratic leadership style (Foels et al., 2000). Though this effect was not statistically significant, it does present a problematic trend: the more masculine the group is the less attractive democratic leadership becomes. Women are at a disadvantage if this trend still exists, as democratic leadership is their preferred leadership style (compared to autocratic). However, is it possible that attitudes regarding leadership, specifically female leadership, may have started to shift as new generations of followers enter the workplace and other public spaces?

Generation Y, or Millennials, are those born between 1981 and 1996. Generation Y has come into their own and established themselves in society and the workplace (Parker et al., 2019). Generation Z (Centennials) are starting to do the same. Generations Z, or the population born after 1996, are still in their fledgling state; in 2019 this generation would be individuals 22 years old or younger. But the small percentage of Generation Z age 18 and older are present in the workforce, academia, and society as a whole. They are entering public spaces and are affected by leadership in a variety of ways, whether it is the professor in the classroom, one’s supervisor, or the leader of the nation. Does Generation Z hold the same attitudes about female leadership that their predecessors do? A recent Pew Research Center survey found that Generation Z and Generation Y are very alike in terms of education and political affiliations: both groups are better educated and more progressive than the generations that came before them (Parker et al., 2019). Do these factors influence Generation Z and Y’s perspectives on what good leadership looks like, be it male or female?

THE CURRENT STUDY

The following research was conducted to answer a variety of questions relevant to the topic of female leadership and perspectives of effective and desirable leadership. Based on the established research on democratic v. autocratic leadership research and ILT, it was hypothesized that:

H1: Women (and men) demonstrating the democratic leadership style would have more favorable evaluations than when demonstrating the autocratic leadership style.

H2: Women (and men) would be viewed as warmer and more competent when displaying the democratic leadership style than when displaying the autocratic leadership style.

Based on the research on Generation Z and Generation Y’s progressive nature, the following was also hypothesized in contradiction of RCT:

H3: Men demonstrating the democratic leadership style would not have more favorable evaluations than women demonstrating the democratic leadership style.

H4: Men demonstrating the autocratic leadership style would not have more favorable evaluations than women demonstrating the autocratic leadership style.

METHODS

Participants: A total of 108 participants took part in this study. The participants were mostly female (69.4%) and mostly white (83.3%) college students recruited at a small regional university in the United States. The average age of participants was M = 20.4 years (SD = 4.3) and ages ranged from 18 to 42 years. Of this sample, 92% of participants were 22 years of age or younger, indicating affiliation with Generation Z. Because the desired sample were Generations Z and Y, the two responses outside this age range (ages 41 and 42) were kept out of analysis, bringing the total sample size to 106. All participants were treated in accordance with APA ethical guidelines.

Materials: The current study was vignette-based and relied on four different vignettes depicting variations of autocratic and democratic leadership and variations of the leader’s biological sex being depicted as female or male (Appendix A). The vignettes first described the leader’s actions to reflect either the autocratic leadership style or the democratic leadership style; this was the first independent variable (IV). The relevant leader behaviors came straight from Chelladurai and Saleh’s (1980) validated Leadership Scale with appropriate focus to the “Democratic Behavior” and “Autocratic Behavior” subscales. For instance, the democratic behaviors described in two of the scenarios included that the leader let the group set their own goals, share in decision-making, and asked for the opinion of others whereas the autocratic behaviors described in two of the scenarios discussed how the leader kept to him/herself, refused to compromise, and worked independently from others. Then each vignette was manipulated to reflect that the leader was either male or female (the second IV). The vignette further discussed a situation that arose in the workplace and how the situation played out based on the leadership style of the supervisor.

To assess positive or negative evaluations of the leader in the scenario, a brief survey was created using a Likert scale from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). This survey assessed the dependent variable (DV) of leader favorability and included eight items, four of which were reversecoded. Sample items included “I would respect this leader if I was working for him/her,” “This is a good leader,” and “I would look for a new job if this was my leader.” The Cronbach’s Alpha for this survey was .96, indicating high reliability.

Fisk et al.’s (2002) Competence and Warmth Scales were used to assess how participants viewed the leader in terms of competence (DV2) and warmth (DV3), two concepts central to stereotyping. This scale also used a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) and asked various questions regarding the competency, efficiency, intelligence, friendliness, trustworthiness, warmth, etc. of the leader. For example, participants were asked: “How competent do you view this leader to be?” and also “How warm do you view this leader to be?” Each subscale was analyzed independently, a precedent set by the authors of the scale in their 2002 study. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the competence subscale was found to be .86, indicating high reliability. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the warmth subscale was found to be .95, which also indicated high scale reliability.

Finally, participants filled out a demographic survey in which their age, sex, gender identity, ethnicity, and political orientation were asked. Additionally,

participants were asked what their major or intended major was. Participant sex was identified as a potential covariate for the current study due to the manipulation of leader sex in the vignettes.

Procedure: Participants were recruited from an online database over the span of one semester. The database tracked students taking Introductory Psychology courses at a small midwestern university and provided students with research studies to take in order to satisfy their course requirements. The study was conducted entirely online through the Qualtrics surveying software. Participants first completed the informed consent and then were randomly assigned to read one of the four vignettes. After reading the vignette, participants filled out the leadership evaluation survey, the competence and warmth subscales (Fisk et al., 2002), and filled in their demographic information. Participants were thoroughly debriefed and told the purpose of the study.

RESULTS

The data were uploaded into SPSS and first screened prior to analysis following Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007) recommendations. All reverse-coded items were changed, and the reliability analysis was run for the DV of leader favorability (α = .96) as well as each subscale of the Competence (α = .86) and Warmth (α = .95) Scales. The data were screened for univariate and multivariate outliers, but none were found. However, there were three cases where data were missing at random for the leader favorability DV. The participants’ respective response averages for the survey were imputed for the missing value for the three separate cases (mean substitution; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). For the competence subscale, there was one case where data were missing at random and the participant’s mean for the competence subscale was imputed for the missing value. Two participants each had one data point missing at random for the warmth subscale. The participants’ respective means for the warmth subscale were imputed in both cases. There were four cases where participants failed to fill in any responses for both the warmth and competence subscales and these participants were excluded from analysis. In addition, there were three cases where the sex of the participant was not disclosed. Because the current study identified that participant sex was a potential covariate, these cases were excluded from the analysis as well, bringing the sample size down to 99. While there was no skewness present in the DVs, two of the DVs, leader favorability (z = -1.30) and warmth (z = -1.15), appeared to demonstrate platykurtosis. However, upon further investigation the null hypothesis was not rejected, as the absolute values for each of the DVs after dividing by standard error was not greater than z = 3.29, which is the recommended threshold for a medium-sized sample (50 < N < 300); as such the distributions were assumed to be normal (Kim, 2013). Normality was further assumed due to cell size (49 participants were in the leader sex male and 50 participants were in the leader sex female conditions while of those same participants 50 were in the autocratic leader condition and 49 were in the democratic leader condition). Despite the even distribution in cell size, Box’s M revealed that homogeneity of variance-covariance was violated F (18, 31600.21) = 2.21, p = .002. Because Box’s M is highly sensitive, the p-value was not less than .001, and the cell sizes were equal, the author chose to overlook this violation, as per instruction by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Furthermore, the assumption of equality of variance was tested using Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variance and was met, as there was no significance level below .05 for any of the DVs: Leader favorability F(3, 95) = 2.01, p = .12, competence F(3, 95) = 1.96, p = .13, and warmth F(3, 95) = 0.83, p = .48. Finally, multicollinearity and singularity were assessed using Pearson product-moment correlations. While the DV of leader favorability was positively and highly correlated with warmth (r = .88) and competence (r = .75), none of the correlations were .90 or higher, which would cause statistical problems in the analysis (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).

A 2x2 factorial MANCOVA was run with the leader’s sex and leadership style as the two IVs and participants’ leader favorability rating and perceptions of warmth and competence as the three DVs; the participants’ sex served as a covariate. The multivariate tests were examined, and participant sex was not found to be a significant covariate, F(3, 92) = .33, p = .80, η2 p = .01. Additionally, there was no interaction between leader sex and leadership style, F(3, 92) = .32, p = .81, η2 p = .01. Furthermore, the sex of the leader was not found to have a significant effect on the DVs, F(3, 92) = 1.48, p = .23, η2 p = .05. However, the autocratic or democratic nature of the leader did have a significant effect, F(3, 92) = 81.70, p < .001, η2 p = .73 and needed to be examined further.

A test of between-subjects effects revealed that leadership style was found to have a significant effect on all three DVs: leader favorability, F(1, 98) = 189.92, p < .001, η2 p = .67, perceived competence, F(1, 98) = 40.14, p < .001, η2 p = .29, and perceived warmth, F(1, 98) = 176.76, p < .001, η2 p = .65. The rating for the autocratic leader, either male or female was consistently lower than the democratic leader’s rating on all three DVs, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2 (see Figure 1). Men and women were found to be equivalently rated on their leader favorability, competence, and warmth in each leadership style, thus supporting Hypotheses 3 and 4 (see Table 1).

DISCUSSION

Hypothesis 1 was supported: democratic leaders were more favorably rated than autocratic leaders, which is consistent with most current research on the subject. However, while this piece of information is common knowledge, it does demonstrate that women’s preferred leadership style is more favorably evaluated and should support positive evaluation of female leaders. As previously discussed, this is not always the case, specifically in groups that are more masculine (Foels et al., 2000). Because the sample for the current study was mostly female (69.4%), the results make sense. However, had the sample been mostly male, the outcome of the study may have been different.

Hypothesis 2 was also supported: Women and men were rated as warmer and more competent when displaying the democratic leadership style than when displaying the autocratic leadership style. The literature would indicate that it is expected that the leaders were viewed as warmer when demonstrating the democratic leadership style (M = 22.96) as opposed to the autocratic leadership style (M = 12.12) since the autocratic leader tends to lack personalized interactions with followers, consideration for follower’s opinions, and doesn’t seek followers’ input on decision-making (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980; Goethals & Hoyt, 2017). However, it is interesting to find that the democratic leaders were viewed as more competent than the autocratic ones, since leaders can be successful using either method. Previous research has pointed out that under authentic conditions democratic leadership has slight advantages over autocratic leadership in terms of productivity (Gastil, 1994). The current study was not an authentic scenario, but still the democratic leader was perceived to be more competent than the autocratic one. Though competency is not the same as productivity, these ideas are related and the outcome of the current study fits with previous research. The difference in scores of competence between the combined male and female autocratic leaders (M = 16.49) and male and female democratic leaders (M = 21.70) was noticeable and provides further support for favorability of the democratic leadership style.

This brings back the question of: are certain stereotypes being held that impacts how perceptions of competence and warmth are determined? Sex stereotypes did not appear to influence evaluations of warmth and competence, since male and female leaders were equally evaluated on the Warmth and Competence Scales (Table 1). This does not mean that other stereotypes were not being made; in fact, it is quite possible that they were. The democratic leader (male or female) was evaluated highly on warmth and competence and also on the third DV, leader favorability. While this can be explained by the three DVs being correlated, an alternative explanation may be that participants rated the leader high in favorability due to feelings of admiration and pride, which is predicted by stereotyping research (Fisk et al., 2002). Additionally, when leader warmth and competence were both low, leader favorability was also low, which could be an indication of contemptuous prejudice, featuring resentment and anger. High agreement with statements from the leader evaluation survey such as “I do not like this leader,” “This leader is off-putting,” and “I would look for a new job if this was my leader,” could be interpreted as contempt or resentment. While the current study was not designed to directly test the formation of stereotypes, greater attention needs to be paid to stereotyping and how evaluations of leadership are formed around them.

Finally, Hypotheses 3 and 4 were also supported: Men demonstrating the democratic and autocratic leadership styles did not have more favorable evaluations than women demonstrating the democratic and autocratic leadership styles. Though these two hypotheses were the null hypotheses, they are in direct contradiction with RCT and are therefore not necessarily expected. However, they were predicted given the demographics of the current study’s sample. Generations Z and Y were the primary target for this study and of the 99 participants, 92% were 22 years of age or younger, indicating that the vast majority of the sample were

members of Generation Z. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that two-thirds of Generations Z and Y say that they are glad that there is an increasing number of women running for public office and view this increase in female representation as a positive societal change (Parker et al., 2019). Generation Z is the most racially and ethnically diverse generation to date in the U.S. and they (along with Millennials) are more liberal than their preceding generations (Parker et al., 2019). These factors, as well as a greater propensity to pursue higher education, may be contributing to the more egalitarian views on leadership that Generations Z and Y exhibit.

LIMITATIONS

As with all research, the current study had several limitations. The purpose of this study was to gather information about leadership evaluations, specifically as they relate to male and female leaders, from young adults (i.e., Generations Z and Y). The study was successful in that endeavor, but in order to draw appropriate conclusions, the sample needed to be compared to another. Comparing the responses of Generations Z and Y to other generations (e.g., Generation X, Baby Boomers, or the Silent Generation) would allow for generalization of the information. Because a convenience sample was utilized, this aspect of the research was missing. An additional weakness with the current sample was it was mostly female (69.4%). It would have been more ideal to have a 50/50 split of participants who identify as male v. female in a study looking at perceptual differences in leaders based on their sex.

Additionally, the study used vignettes to solicit participants’ responses and draw evaluations of their attitudes and beliefs surrounding male and female autocratic/democratic leadership. Vignettes have a strong place in social psychology research (Barter & Reynold, 1999; Langer, 2016; Steiner et al., 2016), but sometimes lack external validity. Creating hypothetical scenarios for participants to assess is not as ideal as putting them in the actual scenario, but it does easily allow participants to evaluate and consider the topical constructs of the study and is an accepted practice in the field of psychology. While vignette research is a useful means of collecting information on specific topics, in the future more robust formats for research may be desirable.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

Future studies on the topic of female leadership or other similar topics may look into moving away from vignette research into something with greater external validity. While vignette research is accepted in the field, it may be desirable to present the research in more realistic terms. For instance, rather than having participants evaluate a hypothetical scenario, perhaps participants could evaluate the male v. female leader’s resumes or a filmed interview. These stimuli may translate to the “real world” in a more meaningful way and allow for more critical thought in participant response.

As previously mentioned, comparing Generations Z and Y to other generations would be a priority should the current study be revisited. Gathering greater information about Generations Z and Y and how they compare to their predecessors would allow for robust conclusions about these generations to be drawn. The element of comparative research would provide greater credence to the conclusions drawn from the current study if they were replicated with another sample.

Following this line of research, the author would like to look more closely into stereotyping, so that greater understanding of stereotype formation can be understood for male and female leaders. The current study examined perceptions of leader warmth and competence and how this related to leader sex and style, but was not designed to closely investigate the stereotype formation process. There are important outcomes associated with stereotype formation that may be intuitive, but are worthy of explicit discussion. For example, the stereotypes formed in the Fiske et al.’s (2002) four-part theory (i.e., paternalistic prejudice, contemptuous prejudice, envious prejudice, and admiration) have further implications than attitude formation and there are additional factors that can cause these stereotypes to form (Fiske et al., 2002). The stereotypes can be formed based only on perceived status of the character and the evaluators’ perceptions of competition (or a lack there of). High competence perceptions can result from evaluations of high status and low competence perceptions can result from evaluations of low status. Feelings of competition can invoke participants to rate a character as low in warmth whereas a lack of competitive perceptions may result in a high warmth assessment. These perceptions and cognitions can influence stereotyping

and subsequent behavioral decisions. Future research should be designed to test stereotyping of male and female leaders more directly through this theory.

Additionally, moving away from the democratic and autocratic leadership dyadic theory, transformational leadership would be a topic of interest for future studies. Transformational leadership exemplifies many qualities of a democratic leader and there are many existing validated measures to examine this concept (Barling et al., 2010). Transformational leadership discusses the “four I’s”: Individualized consideration, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence (Barling et al., 2010). Individualized consideration can be seen in the democratic leader’s care for the opinion of the followers and their involvement in decision making, but additional leadership features, such as charisma, ethicality, openness to innovation, creativity, problem-solving, and conveying a vision for the future are found in the transformational leadership style (Barling et al., 2010). A large body of research points to transformational leadership as a “more active and motivating form of leadership” (Goethals & Hoyt, 2017, p.xi) that inspires greater engagement, effort, and loyalty in followers (Barling et al., 2010).

Women make highly effective transformational leaders, more so than men (Goethals & Hoyt, 2017). The reason for this finding is because of some of the factors that put female leaders at a disadvantage in RCT: women are more communal and sociable, which helps them to perform higher in factors associated with transformational leadership, specifically individualized consideration. While these behaviors may be congruent with women’s role expectations and incongruent with many peoples’ protypes for leadership, they make for better transformational leaders. A follow-up study examining how men and women demonstrate transformational leadership and are evaluated for it would be of interest.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Women face many barriers in assuming positions of leadership. Though the current study did not find support for RCT in the given sample, there is a vast body of evidence supporting this impediment to female leadership. Additionally, there are social structures and organizational cultures in place that contribute to a woman’s difficulty in rising to leadership positions in the workplace. SDT and FCT are two such theories that provide evidence to this effect, but they are by no means a comprehensive list. Additionally, women who do make it into positions of power may be met with specific and challenging demands that their male counterparts do not have to face. For instance, the “glass cliff” phenomenon occurs when women are more likely than men to be appointed to leadership positions that are risky and in which success is less likely and failure may be expected (Ryan et al., 2016). This effect has been observed repeatedly and while women are disproportionately less likely to assume a leadership position, they are also disproportionately likely to assume a tumultuous and undesirable leadership position. Provided the lack of female leadership representation, the social pressures to be a successful female leader make failing a catastrophic event, which makes the glass cliff all that more perilous.

Despite the obstacles that female leaders face, they continue to prove themselves in leadership positions. Women are highly successful leaders. When placed in leadership positions with expected failure, women can turn those “guaranteed” losses into wins by successfully navigating through the challenge (Ryan et al., 2016). In fact, one believed reason for why women are assigned leadership in failure situations more often than men is because women are viewed as more competent during a crisis (Ryan et al., 2016). Though born from sex stereotypes, the idea that women are more successful in an unsuccessful situation is exactly why female leadership is so powerful.

The outlook on female leadership can be seen as optimistic. Given only 100 years since women’s right to vote was secured, the strides women have made in the workplace, at home, in politics, and in society as a whole is impressive, considering the vast expanse of human history (Wright & Rogers, 2015). Should women continue to progress and succeed as they have in the last century, the female leaders of the future should expect an egalitarian welcome. Additionally, as new generations continue to support female leadership there is little doubt that women will maintain their earned spot in the workplace and will be recognized and valued for the advanced leadership positions they earn.

REFERENCES

Barling, J., Christie, A., & Hoption, C. (2010).

Leadership. In S. Zedeck (Ed), Handbook of

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 183-240). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association. Barter, C., & Renold, E. (1999). The use of vignettes in qualitative research. Social Research

Update, 25. Department of Labor. (2019, October 4). Table A-1.

Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age. Retrieved October 11, 2019, from https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.ht

m. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Psychology, 2(1), 34-45. Eagly, A. H., & Johnson, B. T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256. Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 125. Foti, R. J., & Hauenstein, N. (2007). Pattern and variable approaches in leadership emergence and effectiveness. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 92(2), 347. doi: 10.1037/00219010.92.2.347 Foels, R., Driskell, J. E., Mullen, B., & Salas, E. (2000). The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction: An integration.

Small Group Research, 31(6), 676-701. Gastil, J. (1994). A meta-analytic review of the productivity and satisfaction of democratic and autocratic leadership. Small Group Research, 25(3), 384–410. doi: 10.1177/1046496494253003 Goethals, G. R., & Hoyt, C. L. (2017). Women and

Leadership: History, Theories, and Case

Studies, Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire

Publishing Group LLC. Griffin, C. (2009). "Feminist Communication

Theories". In Littlejohn, Stephen W.; Foss,

Karen A. (eds.). Encyclopedia of

Communication Theory. SAGE. pp. 391–392.

ISBN 978-1-4129-5937-7. Hollander, J. A., & Abelson, M. J. (2014). Language and Talk. In J. D. McLeod, E. J. Lawler, & M.

Schwalbe (Eds.), Handbook of the Social

Psychology of Inequality (pp. 181–206). New

York: Springer. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004).

Transformational and transactional leadership:

A meta-analytic test of their relative validity.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755-768. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755 Kim H. Y. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution using skewness and kurtosis. Restorative Dentistry &

Endodontics, 38(1), 52–54. doi:10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52 Langer, P. (2016). The research vignette: Reflexive writing as interpretative representation of qualitative inquiry—A methodological proposition. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(9), 735744. doi:1077800416658066. 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, 343378. Moss, S. A., & Ngu, S. (2006). The relationship between personality and leadership preferences.

Current Research in Social Psychology, 11(6), 70-91. http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.html Offerman, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership

Quarterly, 5(l), 43-58. 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(6), 1129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036751

Parker, K., Graf, N., & Igielnik, R. (2019, January 18). Generation Z looks a lot like Millennials on key social and political issues. Pew Research

Center. Retrieved October 11, 2019, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/ge neration-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-keysocial-and-political-issues/. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Morgenroth, T., Rink,

F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The

Leadership Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.10.008 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance:

An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and

Oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Martin, M., & Stallworth, L.

M. (1991). Consensual racism and career track:

Some implications of Social Dominance

Theory. Political Psychology, 12(4), 691–721. Steiner, P. M., Atzmüller, C., & Su, D. (2016).

Designing valid and reliable vignette experiments for survey research: A case study on the fair gender income gap. Journal of

Methods and Measurement in the Social

Sciences, 7(2), 52–94. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Vol 5. Boston, MA:

Pearson. US Census Bureau. (2019, September 25). American

Community Survey (ACS). Retrieved October 21, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Van Engen, M. L., & Willemsen, T. M. (2004). Sex and leadership styles: A meta-analysis of research published in the 1990s. Psychological

Reports, 94(1), 3-18. Wright, E. O., & Rogers, J. (2015). American

Society: How it Really Works. New York:

W.W. Norton & Co. Zillman, C. (2019, May 16). The Fortune 500 has more female CEOs than ever before. Retrieved

October 11, 2019, from https://fortune.com/2019/05/16/fortune-500female-ceos/.