Leadership Evaluations and Gender: A Cross-Sectoral Perspective

Abstract

This study investigates the presence of gender biases in leadership evaluations of assertive women across various sectors, using the character "Julie" as a case study to elicit natural responses without explicit gender labeling. The research employs a cross-sectoral case study approach, conducting semi-structured interviews with eight informants, including one female and one male leader representing each sector: academia, oil, finance, and health sectors.

The findings reveal significant variations in how Julie's assertiveness is perceived across sectors. All four sectors exhibited conditioned acceptance of Julie based on her success, team orientation, and competence. Leaders tended to correct her behavior to align with more communal traits, reflecting the "double-bind" dilemma, where women must balance assertiveness with warmth to avoid negative perceptions. While ambition was recognized as important, Julie was advised to moderate it, as "too much" ambition would be perceived as annoying. This illustrates the "labyrinth" women often navigate in the business world. Leaders either integrated Julie into the in-group by guiding her towards communal traits or placed her in the out-group if her norms and values did not align with theirs. The study concludes that gender biases and stereotypes influence evaluations, varying by sector and leader. This study complements prior research by illustrating how these biases manifest in sector-specific contexts.

The study underscores the persistence of gender biases in leadership evaluations and necessitates for continued efforts to create inclusive and equitable workplaces where all employees can succeed based on their competence and qualifications. Based on the findings, this thesis discusses practical implications, limitations, and directions for future research.