----FINAL DRAFT-----

WOMEN’S INTEREST IN TOP LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.

Candidate Number: 72974

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of BSc in Business

and Management Studies

School of Business, Management and Economics

University of Sussex

Date: May 2013

72974

1

Contents

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………............ 3

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………….......... 3

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………….......... 3

Research Title……………………………………………………………………………............ 3

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………........... 4

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….......... 5

1.1 Background to the Study 5

1.2 Research Questions 6

1.3 Hypotheses 6

1.4 Report Layout 6

2. Literature Review…………………………………………………………………….............. 8

3. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………........... 15

3.1 Research Strategy 15

3.2 Ethical Concerns 16

3.3 Research Design 16

3.4 Research Questions and Data Analysis 18

4. Results…………………………………………………………………………………............. 20

4.1 Chi-Square Analysis 20

4.2 Ideal Level of Management 20

4.3 Realistic Level of Management 21

4.4 Comparison of Ideal and Realistic Levels of Management 21

4.5 Scale Reliability 22

4.6 Summary of Questionnaire Responses: Traits 22

4.7 Factorial Mixed ANOVA: Traits 23

4.8 Communal and Agentic Traits 23

4.9 Trait Discrepancy 25

4.10 Factorial Mixed ANOVA: Trait Discrepancy 25

72974

2

5. Discussion........................................................................................................................ 27

5.1 Differences between Male and Female Ambition 27

5.2 Low Ambitions and Stereotypical Beliefs 28

5.3 Low Ambitions and Trait Discrepancy 29

5.4 Limitations 30

6. Conclusions 31

7. Appendix 32

Appendix 1: Example of Research Questionnaire 32

8. References........................................................................................................................ 37

72974

3

List of Figures

Figure 1: Questionnaire Responses - Male Ideal Level of Management

Figure 2: Questionnaire Responses - Female Ideal Level of Management

Figure 3: Questionnaire Responses - Male Realistic Level of Management

Figure 4: Questionnaire Responses - Female Realistic Level of Management

Figure 5: Communal Trait Means vs. Realistic Level of Management

Figure 6: Communal Trait Means vs. Realistic Level of Management

List of Tables

Table 1: Items on the Agentic/Communal Scale

Table 2: Summary of Questionnaire Responses (Leader Traits)

Table 3: Summary of Questionnaire Responses (Trait Discrepancy)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Michelle Luke for her help and guidance throughout

this project. I would also like to thank John Bateman and Shova Thapa Karki for allowing me

to carry out my research at the University of Sussex BMEC open day.

Research Title

Women’s Interest in Top Leadership Positions

72974

4

Abstract

The primary goal of this research was to examine whether women are interested in top

management positions. The study asked 91 undergraduate students; 50 female and 41 male

to complete a questionnaire about their ideal and realistic levels of management, and their

views of themselves and of a leader. It was found that female respondents had lower

ambitions than male respondents, in that they were more likely to see themselves in lower

management positions. Women with low ambitions were also found to have slightly more

stereotypical views about leaders. In general, respondents with lower ambitions also had a

slightly larger discrepancy between how they viewed themselves and a leader.

72974

5

1. Introduction

1.1 Background to the Study

When it comes to holding top leadership positions it is without a doubt that women are a

minority. Only 15% of board director positions in FTSE 100 companies are held by women,

even though females make up 46.4% of the UK labour force (Catalyst, 2012; Office for

National Statistics, 20121; Sealy & Vinnicombe, 2012). Although there have been changes to

laws, such as the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and Equal Pay Regulations (1983), which

were aimed at enabling women to have more equal opportunities, there is still an

underrepresentation of women in the top levels of management (London Chamber of

Commerce and Industry, 2006). This is not because women are less qualified than men: 66%

of first class degrees received by females were First or Upper Second qualifications,

compared to 61% of those attained by males (HESA 2012).

As well as there being no substantial evidence to suggest that women are any less

competent than men, there is also research to suggest that women could actually be

beneficial to boardrooms and top management. Desvaux et al (2008, cited in Howard and

Wellins, 2009) found that firms with three or more women in senior management scored

higher on all dimensions linked to financial performance than firms with no women at the top.

If women leaders can be advantageous to organisations, then why is there still this

underrepresentation?

Current research focuses on others’ perceptions of women. This includes theories

suggesting that women are discriminated against through ‘evaluation bias’ when being

selected for positions (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Other theories, like description and prescription

bias (Heilman, 2001) suggest that women are expected to behave in certain ways, and that

these behaviours are not synonymous with those of a leader.

The argument put forward by this report is that perhaps women are underrepresented in top

management positions because they do not want these jobs. In order to investigate this

72974

6

argument, the main aim of this study is to examine whether women have lower ambitions

and less interest in top leadership positions than men. Furthermore, the study investigates

whether women with low ambitions have more stereotypical views about leadership being a

masculine role, meaning that they will see themselves in a different light to a leader and

therefore have less association with, and less interest in these positions.

1.2 Research Questions:

1) Do women have lower ambitions than men?

2) Are people with low ambitions more likely to have more stereotypic beliefs about

leaders? For instance, do people with lower ambitions describe leaders with

stereotypical agentic traits?

3) Do people with lower ambitions have a greater discrepancy between how they see

themselves and how they see a leader?

1.3 Hypotheses:

1) It is predicted than women will have lower ambitions than men.

2) It is predicted that those with low ambitions, particularly women, will also have more

stereotypical views of leaders.

3) It is predicted that those with low ambitions will have a greater discrepancy between

how they rate themselves and how they rate a leader.

1.4 Report Layout:

Chapter 2 (Literature Review) reviews current literature in the area surrounding the

underrepresentation of women in leadership. It covers existing theories and approaches and

aims to expose a gap in the current research. Chapter 3 (Methodology) explains how the

research forming the main body of this study was carried out and how this was analysed.

Chapter 4 (Results) reports the findings of this research and chapter 5 (Discussion) explains

72974

7

the meaning of the results and analysis in a broader context. Finally, chapter 6 (Conclusions)

concludes the report and provides an original contribution to the current literature.

72974

8

2. Literature Review

Historically, men have been the predominant leaders, so naturally leadership theory focuses

around men. Leadership opportunities for women were rooted around women’s issues and

institutions like convents and all-girl schools, even though the majority of women’s college

presidents were male (Bass, 2008). “The Great Man Theory”, an early leadership idea

suggested that people are born with the ability to lead. Given the name of this literature,

women are not even taken into account (Jogulu & Wood, 2006). This research led to further

theories, namely the “trait” theory, which again, mainly described male characteristics as

those that a good leader should possess (ibid). Early research into women leaders

suggested that women had to ‘behave like men’ in order to lead effectively (Bass, 2008).

These traditional views and expectations form the more modern area of focus related to the

lack of women in leadership, which is that of stereotyping. Stereotypes are a major

component of gender. Gender uses cultural meanings to enable the differentiation of humans

into two sexes (Barreto, Ryan & Schmitt, 2009). In the 1960s, researchers started to step

away from biology to explain gender differences and instead examine the social constructs

that demanded men and women to behave differently (Sigel, 1996). This ‘socialisation’

process can begin in childhood, for instance, in toy shops where there is a clear gender

divide between which toys and games are ‘acceptable’ for boys and for girls. It could be said

that this forms a basis for not only how boys and girls should behave, but also who they can

become as adults. Furthermore, in this particular instance, socialisation creates gender

stereotypes. In these gender stereotypes, women are believed to have communal traits (e.g.

concerned with the compassionate treatment of others; kind, caring) and men are believed to

have agentic traits (e.g. concerned with assertion and control: aggressive, ambitious; Eagly &

Sczesny, 2009; Heilman, Block & Martell, 1995; Heilman, 2012). As well as men and women

being seen to have different traits, it is also expected that men lack the characteristics that

are most dominant in women and vice versa (Heilman, 2001). It has been suggested that

people who perceive themselves to be more agentic will be more successful in their careers,

72974

9

and that their career success will create an increase in these agentic traits (Abele, 2003).

Research has shown that most people associate leaders with more agentic characteristics

(Schein, 1975; Powell & Butterfield, 2003; Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Brenner, Tomkiewicz &

Schein, 1989). Perhaps, this is due to the traditional dominance of males in leadership

positions and the difficulty in separating the two (Eagly & Carli, 2007). This is supported by

research by Schein (1975), which showed that employees perceive middle managers to have

more male characteristics and temperaments than female characteristics. However, this

research was carried out almost 40 years ago, so there is a possibility that views about

women or leaders may have changed in more modern times.

The common phrase “the glass ceiling”, which is believed to prevent women from reaching

top management, is thought to be a natural consequence of gender stereotyping and beliefs

about what women are like and how they should behave (Heilman, 2001). However, some

more recent research has shown that some views of a good leader now include some

communal traits, featuring characteristics like communication skills (Eagly & Sczesny, 2009).

It has been suggested that management is no longer simply about “command and control”, it

now encompasses “communicating, listening, mentoring, teaching and encouragement” (ibid,

p.36).

However, despite these new findings and suggestions that leadership is not necessarily a

‘male’ role, there is still the belief that women are not suited to top management positions.

Role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) explains that because women are perceived to

be more communal and leaders to be agentic, there is likely to be perceived incompatibility

between the female gender role and leadership roles, leading to prejudice towards women

(Eagly & Karau, 2002). The female sex-role stereotype suggests that women are less

competent but more emotionally friendly than men, and that the stereotype for managers

match that of the male – competent and emotionally ‘cold’ (Bass, 2008). In other words, the

tasks believed to be involved in a leadership position do not match with how women are

72974

10

perceived; therefore women are less likely to be evaluated favourably for a leadership

vacancy.

This gender bias in job evaluation links to theories surrounding description and prescription.

Descriptive bias determines what women are perceived to be like and prescriptive bias

provides beliefs about how they should behave (Heilman, 2001). When people hold

descriptive beliefs about a particular group, they expect members to possess traits and

behave in ways that are consistent with this belief (Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009). Women

are expected to fail at top jobs because of how women are expected to behave and what

these jobs are expected to entail (Heilman, 2001). Like role congruity theory, this explains

that there is an incompatibility between a female’s expected role and the role of a leader. Top

management jobs are typically seen as “male” in sex type, meaning that the tasks involved

immediately contradict the stereotypic beliefs of what women should do and how they should

behave (ibid). This incompatibility between what it is believed someone should be like and

the tasks that a job entails causes a perceived lack of fit (ibid). If the perceived fit is good (i.e.

personal characteristics match job requirements), then success will be expected, but if the fit

is poor then failure will be expected (ibid). In an overly simplistic sense, it could be expected

that a female would fail in a leadership position as her communal traits do not match the

agentic requirements of the job.

However, issues may also arise if stereotypic expectations are not met (Ellemers et al.,

2012). Heilman (2012) explains how women are in a situation they cannot win; they either

have to incur disapproval by showing ‘agentic’ (or male) characteristics which are perceived

to be required for leadership roles, or they have to display feminine characteristics in order to

be accepted for being a woman. The latter will not help her to advance her in career as she

is now perceived to lack leadership ability. Displaying leadership characteristics is perhaps a

desirable quality for men, but is not generally seen as a positive aspect for women (Prentice

& Carranza, 2002).

72974

11

Moving on from theories about others’ views or beliefs about women, some literature begins

to touch on the idea that women’s self-perceptions have contributed to the ‘gender gap’ in

leadership (Ely & Rhodes, 2010). If a woman does not believe she has the qualities that she

identifies with a leader then it is unlikely that she will want to reach top management. An

important part of women’s self-perceptions is their identification with a ‘sex-role’. Men and

women are believed to have different ‘role’ activities (Bass, 2008). Traditionally women have

taken ‘caregiver’ roles and the challenge commonly faced by female leaders is to show that

they can be strong and agentic in leadership roles (Livingston & Pearce, 2009).Gender

identity (also known as sex-role identity) is an individual’s self-view of possessing feminine or

masculine traits (Bem,1974). Powell and Butterfield (2003) undertook a study on gender

roles which showed that if women rated themselves with high masculine characteristics and

low feminine characteristics then they would be more likely to aspire to top management. In

the study, Powell and Butterfield (2003) measured aspirations to top management by asking

what level of management the respondent would most likely work in if they had to choose,

and gender identity was measured by Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI). BSRI is widely used

to measure perceptions of gender roles (Holt & Ellis, 1998). However, it has been suggested

that although BSRI might still be a valid method to examine gender roles, due to roles of men

and women changing since the 1970s, it may no longer be as effective as a measure of

gender identity (Holt & Ellis, 1998).

As previously suggested by Powell and Butterfield (2003), if people see themselves with

higher femininity then they are less likely to expect to reach top management. Expectations

are what an individual thinks will happen and aspirations are what they would like to happen

(Ashby & Schoon, 2010). Historically, career aspiration referred to an individual’s desire to

enter a particular career (Gray & O’Brien 2007). However, it has been more recently

redefined as the degree to which women aspire to leadership positions and continued

education within their careers (O’Brien, 1996 as cited in Gray & O’Brien, 2007).

72974

12

Research surrounding women’s aspirations has previously proved problematic as

researchers have assumed that women who entered more traditional careers (e.g. nursing)

were less ‘achievement oriented’ than their counterparts who pursued male-dominated

occupations, even though they may aspire to leadership within this field (Gray & O’Brien,

2007). Wigfield et al. (2000, cited in Powell & Butterfield, 2003) suggest that men aspire to

male-dominated occupations that are seen to require agentic qualities, whereas women

aspire to female-dominated occupations that require communal characteristics. As discussed

earlier, Schein (1975) found that employees believed middle managers to have masculine

characteristics. Therefore, it could be argued that because leaders are typically seen as

‘male’ women are less likely to aspire to leadership.

There is also evidence to suggest that men and women define career success differently.

Research has shown than men rely on objective measures of success (such as level of

management and salary) whereas women see more subjective measures (like advancement

opportunities and work family balance) as measures of career success (Powell & Mainiero,

1992; Sturges, 1999).

In a study carried out by Gray and O’Brien (2007) they hypothesised that young women with

higher aspirations would also have more liberal attitudes towards women’s rights, have

higher self-efficacy and be described as “independent, assertive and ambitious”. This is

supported by other research on self-efficacy (perception of self-ability) which shows that

women with high-efficacy showed a reactance to a stereotype (Hoyt, 2005). It was observed

that when presented with a perceived limitation of a group’s ability (i.e. women) high self-

efficacy members of this group reacted with counter-stereotypic behaviour (Hoyt, 2005).

Thus meaning, if a member of this group was told that a woman would not be able to

complete a task as well as a man, for instance, she would show more agentic behaviour in

order to prove that a woman could do it.

72974

13

In terms of ambitions, Williams and Chen (2013) discuss how women possessing ‘household

power’ may be detrimental to their aspirations to gain ‘workplace power’. If women do adapt

to behave in ways that others think that they should and take up a traditional stay-at-home

role they will lose any desire to work towards top management and the power associated

with it. To support this, there is theory surrounding the “social ideal self” which involves

comparing a person’s actual self and how a person sees others ideals for him or her (Higgins,

1987). This is derived from self-discrepancy theory which describes an incongruity between

one’s actual perceived self and one’s ideal self (Higgins, 1987). As Higgins (1987) explains,

there are 3 states of self; actual, ideal and ought (an individual’s representation of

characteristics that someone – self or another – believes they should possess). One example

used in describing the difference between ideal and ought self is that some women want to

have a successful career whereas some other person’s belief might be that they ought to be

stay at home mothers (Higgins, 1987). Often used to measure low self-esteem, an

individual’s actual self and their own ideal self are usually compared. Ideal and ought selves,

whether these are from oneself or another act as self-guides and individuals are motivated to

reach a position where self-concepts meet self-guides (Higgins, 1987). In other words,

people are motivated to become the person they, or others, believe they should be. In terms

of women in leadership, this could be translated as women having less motivation to reach

the top because society has the belief that women are the main care givers and they should

have the attributes relevant to that role.

Overall, from the literature it is apparent that the majority of research focuses on how others

treat or view women differently (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Heilman, 2001,

2012). This stereotyping and discrimination by others is put forward as a primary reason for a

lack of women at the top. There appears to be a gap in the literature concerning women’s

interest or lack of, in top leadership positions. It is apparent that there is a degree of

discrimination or bias affecting the amount of women in top management, but do a

substantial amount of women actually want to reach this level? As previously discussed, men

72974

14

and women may define career success differently. It could be the case that women are a

minority in leadership because there is only a minority of women who are aspiring to these

roles. The following chapters of this report will investigate whether low female ambitions and

a lack of interest in leadership could be an alternative reason for the gender gap in top

management.

72974

15

3. Methodology

3.1 Research Strategy

University students were chosen as the sample in this study as they are likely to have had

less experience working in an organisational hierarchy. Without this experience, it could be

suggested that they may not have been exposed to the social constructs within an

organisation that may shape their views regarding women leaders. A study by Dasgupta and

Asgari (2004) showed that frequent exposure to female leaders can lead to less automatic

stereotypic beliefs. Perhaps it could be argued that frequent exposure to social constructs

within an organisation that may hinder women’s advance to top management could lead to

more automatic stereotypic beliefs. By using students as the sample, it is suggested that the

study is better able to investigate whether views are influenced by organisational

socialisation or occur almost naturally depending on gender. This is to say, if the

respondents had been exposed to social constructs (in the organisational hierarchy) where

women cannot reach the top, their views or stereotypes of leaders may be different.

In order to collect data, questionnaires in both a paper format and an online version were

used. There were 91 participants in total, 50 of whom were female and 41 were male.

Respondents were aged between 17 and 26, with a mean age of 20.1 years. All participants

were either currently studying at university, or would be attending university in the next year.

All respondents were UK university students, predominantly from the University of Sussex.

23 paper and 68 online questionnaires were completed. The questionnaire was

predominantly run online due to the target sample being computer-literate students in their

late teens and early 20s. The online method was well-suited for this study as it was deemed

to be more convenient for the sample to complete. Statistics show that 97% of 16-24 year

olds in the United Kingdom frequently use a computer, meaning it would be an appropriate

method of data collection to use (UNECE, 2013).

72974

16

The paper version of the questionnaire was distributed at an open day for the school of

Business and Management at the University of Sussex The online version was created using

a Google Drive template which provided easy data collection, and was distributed to selected

university students through the social networking website Facebook. Respondents were only

able to continue to complete the questionnaire if they selected “yes” when asked if they are

currently (or will be within the next year) a university student.

3.2 Ethical Concerns

As some of the respondents at the open day were under the age of 18, some ethical

concerns were raised. However, all participants received a consent form that had to be

completed before being allowed to take part in the study and they were given the opportunity

to withdraw at any time. However, other than this the study was deemed to be low-risk and

non-intrusive as no personal questions were asked.

3.3 Research Design

The first section of the questionnaire consisted of 2 main questions; “Ideally what level of

management would you like to reach?” And, “realistically what level of management would

you like to reach?” This aimed to test career aspirations. This first section is based on Powell

and Butterfield’s (2003) study on career aspirations. The possible responses for this section

were top management, middle management, lower management and worker (Note: Powell

and Butterfield use ‘Rank and File’ but ‘worker’ was deemed more appropriate for a British

audience).

The second and third sections use an adaptation of Bem’s Sex Role Inventory (BSRI)

formulated by Sandra Bem in 1974. BSRI uses typically agentic, communal and gender

neutral traits to determine an individual’s ‘gender identity’. The ‘short BSRI’ contains 10

neutral, 10 agentic and 10 communal traits that respondents rate themselves on a likert-type

scale 1-7.

72974

17

This study differs slightly from the original BSRI as it asks respondents to rate both

themselves and a ‘good leader’ on the scale. It features 21 adjectives in total; 7 agentic traits,

7 communal traits and 7 gender neutral traits The characteristics have to be rated twice (to

rate self and a good leader) meaning that this section of the questionnaire is longer than the

original studies. Therefore, a 5-point scale is used instead of a 7-point scale to reduce

confusion and longevity. However, the general model of the scale has been tried and tested

and is likely to be more reliable than if the study used an entirely new scale.

Holt & Ellis (1998) reported that although BSRI might still be a valid method to examine

gender roles, it is suggested that the roles of men and women may have changed since the

1970s (when the study was first run) thus some adjectives may no longer be as effective in

determining gender identity. However, due to time constraints for this study it was not viable

to create and test a new study with updated adjectives. This could have reduced reliability,

but this will be considered in the next chapter.

Seven characteristics from each of BSRI’s categories of agentic, communal and

neutral were selected at random to be featured in the study. Table 1 shows these adjectives

and the order in which they appeared in the questionnaire.

Table 1: Items on the Agentic/Communal Scale

Agentic Communal Neutral

4. Dominant 1. Affectionate 2. Truthful

6. Assertive 3. Understanding 12. Unsystematic

7. Individualistic 5. Loyal 13. Jealous

8. Forceful 10. Compassionate 15. Reliable

9. Independent 14. Gentle 16. Helpful

11. Ambitious 18. Sympathetic 20. Conscientious

17. Competitive 19. Warm 21. Likeable.

Note: The number preceding each adjective reflects its position as it appears in the questionnaire.

72974

18

3.4 Research Questions and Data Analysis

The research questions for this project are numbered below, followed by the method of

analysis used.

1) Do women have lower ambitions than men?

The first research question is analysed through the use of Pearson’s chi-square test.

This test is used because it is to be examined whether there is a relationship between

two categorical variables (gender and level of management). Chi-square analysis

compares the frequency observed in certain categories to the frequencies that might

be expected by chance (Field, 2005).

2) Are people with low ambitions more likely to have more stereotypic beliefs about

leaders? For instance, do people with lower ambitions describe leaders with

stereotypical agentic traits?

The second research question is analysed through a mixed factorial ANOVA

(Analysis of Variance) reported as a:

2 (Gender; Male, Female) x 4 (Realistic level of management; Top, Middle,

Lower, Worker) x 3 (Traits; Agentic, communal, neutral) mixed design factorial

ANOVA with the first two factors as between subjects and the final factor as

within subjects.

A mixed design factorial ANOVA is used as there is a mixture of between-groups and

repeated measures and several independent variables; gender, realistic level of

management and traits (Field, 2005). The ‘traits’ is a mean of how people rated a

leader on neutral, communal and agentic traits.

72974

19

3) Do people with lower ambitions have a greater discrepancy between how they see

themselves and how they see a leader?

The third research question also used a mixed design ANOVA reported as:

2 (Gender; Male, Female) x 4 (Realistic level of management; Top, Middle,

Lower, Worker) x 3 (Discrepancy between leader and self traits; Agentic,

communal, neutral) mixed design factorial ANOVA with the first two factors as

between subjects and the final factor as within subjects.

The third analysis is similar to the second but instead uses the mean of the

discrepancies of each trait in terms of how people rated themselves and a leader.

72974

20

4. Results

4.1 Chi Square Analysis

The study can conclude that there is an association between gender and ‘ideal level of

management. Women are more likely to see themselves in middle management than men,

X2(6) = 188.81, p <.001. In particular, 22 women vs. 13 men “ideally” want to reach middle

management positions.

There was also a significant association between gender and realistic level of management.

X2(8) = 198.245, p <.001. 12 women vs. 2 men realistically see themselves in lower

management.

Numbers of males and females in each category can be found in Table 2, in section 4.7.

To examine the associations found from the Chi Square analysis, two charts were created,

showing percentages for each level of management shown in Figure 1 and 2 in section 4.3

and Figure 3 and 4 in section 4.4.

4.2 Ideal level of management:

For ideal level of management, no respondents selected “worker” so this is omitted from the

charts in Figure 1 and 2. The charts of ideal level of management show that 66% of men

Figure 1: Questionnaire Responses - Male Ideal Level of Management

Figure 2: Questionnaire Responses – Female Ideal Level of Management

72974

21

ideally want to reach top management compared to 46% of women. More women (44%)

want to reach middle management than men (32%). Finally, more women (10%) ideally want

to reach lower management than men (2%).

4.3 Realistic Level of Management:

The charts for realistic level of management show that the majority of both men and women

realistically see themselves in middle management (62% of women and 80% of men).

Almost a quarter (24%) of women realistically see themselves in lower management,

compared to just 5% of men. The majority of men (89%) selected the top end of the

management scale (middle and above) where as the majority of women selected middle and

lower (86%).

4.4 Comparing Ideal and Realistic Levels of Management

The chi-square analysis shows that women are more likely to select middle management as

their ideal level of management, and lower as their realistic level. Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 show

the proportion of males and females who selected each level of management. The number of

respondents for top management drops substantially from ideal to realistic. Ideally, two thirds

(66%) of males want to reach top management and this drops to just 10% at a realistic level.

The same can be said for women, of whom 46% ideally want to reach top management

which then drops to 14% realistically.

Figure 3: Male Realistic Level of Management Figure 4: Female Realistic Level of Management

72974

22

As well as this drop in top management, there is a rise in middle management. 32% of males

have an ideal level of middle management compared to 80% realistically. 44% of women

ideally want to reach middle management compared to 62% realistically. Women have a

greater difference between ideal level of management and realistic level of management.

4.5 Scale Reliability

The items on both the neutral and agentic self traits scale were unreliable (neutral: α = .53,

agentic: α = .55). The items on the neutral leader traits scale were also unreliable (α = .58).

However, the items on the communal self traits scale were reliable (α = .77). The items on

both communal leader traits and agentic leader traits were also reliable (communal: α = .80,

agentic: α = .72).

4.6 Summary of Questionnaire Responses

Table 2: Summary of Questionnaire Responses (Leader Traits)

Communal Agentic Neutral

Realistic

Level of

Management

N M SD M SD M SD

Male

Worker 2 4.1 .60 4.0 .30 4.6 .60

Lower 2 4.6 .60 4.0 .60 4.5 .60

Middle 33 4.0 .49 3.8 .64 4.1 .38

Top 4 3.5 .08 4.0 .13 3.9 .37

Total 41 3.9 .50 3.8 .59 4.2 .38

Female

Worker 0 - - - - - -

Lower 12 3.9 .73 4.2 .51 4.2 .61

Middle 31 4.1 .62 3.9 .52 4.2 .44

Top 7 4.2 .44 3.5 .22 4.0 .34

Total 50 4.0 .63 3.7 .52 4.1 .47

Total

Worker 2 4.1 .60 4.0 .30 4.5 .20

Lower 14 4.0 .56 4.2 .50 4.2 .58

Middle 64 4.0 .55 3.9 .58 4.1 .40

Top 11 3.9 .49 3.7 .29 3.9 .34

Total 91 4.0 .57 3.9 .5 4.2 .43

72974

23

4.7 Factorial mixed ANOVA: Traits

A 2 (gender; male, female) x 4 (realistic level of management; top, middle, lower, worker) x 3

(traits; agentic, communal, neutral) mixed model ANOVA with the first two factors as

between-subjects and the final factor as within-subject showed a non-significant effect of

realistic level of management (realistic level of management X traits): F (4, 122) = .100, p

= .987, partial η2 = .004, therefore respondents’ level of management does not affect how

they rate a leader. It also showed a non-significant main effect of gender (gender X traits): F

(1, 122) = .127, p = .813, partial η2 = .002 Therefore, women and men rate leaders in the

same way. Finally, it also showed a marginal effect of gender and realistic level of

management (gender X realistic level of management X traits): F = (3, 122) = 2.546, p

= .061, partial η2 = .057.

In order to explain these effects, two charts (Figure 5 and Figure 6) were created to show the

mean ratings of communal and agentic traits of leaders from each category. The trait means

can be found in Table 2.

4.8 Communal and Agentic Traits

Figure 5: Communal Trait Means vs. Realistic Level of Management

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

Female LowerFemale Middle Female Top Male Worker Male Lower Male Middle Male Top

Communal Traits of Leaders

72974

24

Women with high ambitions gave the highest communal rating (M= 4.2, SD = .44). Women

with low ambitions gave leaders a low rating for communal traits (M = 3.9, SD = .73). Males

with high ambitions rated leaders lowest for communal traits (M= 3.5, SD = .08.) Overall,

leaders were rated highly for communal traits (M = 4.0, SD = .57).

Figure 6: Agentic Trait Means vs. Realistic Level of Management

Women with low ambitions rated leaders the highest in agentic traits (M = 4.2, SD = .51).

However, women with high ambitions rated leaders the lowest in agentic traits (M= 3.5, SD

= .22). Men with high ambitions rated agentic traits highly (M = 4.0, SD = .13).

A trend can be seen in Figure 6, where women’s rating of agency decreases as their

ambition rises. The same trend is not true for males as males with high ambition also rate

leaders highly for agentic traits.

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

4.4

FemaleLower

FemaleMiddle

Female Top Male Worker Male Lower Male Middle Male Top

Agentic Traits of Leaders

72974

25

4.9 Trait Discrepancy

Table 3: Summary of Questionnaire Responses (Trait Discrepancy)

Communal

Discrepancy

Agentic

Discrepancy

Neutral

Discrepancy

Realistic

Level of

Management

n M SD M SD M SD

Male

Worker 2 .42 .20 .78 1.1 .21 .10

Lower 2 .86 .80 .78 .51 .71 .60

Middle 33 .41 .27 .59 .388 .46 .34

Top 4 .21 .14 .38 .25 .35 .34

Total 41 .41 .30 .60 .47 .45 .35

Female

Worker 0 - - - - - -

Lower 12 .51 .55 .76 .69 .54 .36

Middle 31 .51 .39 .59 .39 .34 .27

Top 7 .36 .23 .39 .25 .42 .18

Total 50 .49 .41 .60 .47 .39 .29

Total

Worker 2 .42 .20 .78 1.1 .21 .10

Lower 14 .56 .57 .76 .65 .56 .37

Middle 64 .46 .34 .59 .42 .39 .31

Top 11 .31 .21 .37 .34 .40 .23

Total 91 .45 .37 .59 .47 .42 .31

Large discrepancies between self and leader were found for communal traits of males with

low ambitions (M = .86, SD = .80), agentic traits of males with low ambitions (M = .78, SD

= .51) and agentic traits of females with low ambitions (M = .76, SD = .69).

4.10 Factorial mixed ANOVA: Trait Discrepancy

A 2 (gender; male, female) x 4 (realistic level of management; top, middle, lower, worker) x 3

(discrepancy between self and leader traits; agentic, communal, neutral) mixed model

ANOVA with the first two factors as between-subjects and the final factor as within-subject

showed a non significant effect of gender (gender X trait discrepancy): F (2, 168) = .105, p

= .900, partial η2 = .001, a non significant effect of ambition (realistic level of management X

72974

26

trait discrepancy): F (6, 168) = .488, p = .817, partial η2 = .017, and a non-significant effect

of gender and ambition (gender X realistic level of management X trait discrepancy): F = (4,

168) = ..371, p = 829, partial η2 = .009.

The same test was run just for women, and there was a near-marginal effect of ambition on

trait discrepancy (realistic level of management X trait discrepancy): F (2.944, 69.181) =

1.601, p = .127, partial η2 = .077. The test was run again solely for men and there was a non-

significant effect of ambition on trait discrepancy (realistic level of management X trait

discrepancy): F (4.233, 52.205) = .925, p = .461, partial η2 = .070.

72974

27

5. Discussion

5.1 Difference between Male and Female Ambition

As hypothesised, women had lower ambitions than men, although only slightly. Women were

more likely to realistically see themselves in lower management than men. However, a large

majority of both men and women chose middle management as their realistic or attainable

level. Research has shown that men are more objective than women and rely upon

measures such as managerial level and salary to denote career success (Powell & Mainiero,

1992; Sturges, 1999). This could account for the large number of male responses on the

higher end of the aspiration scale in the study. Women, however, have been shown to be

more subjective and perceive factors like work- family balance and opportunities for

advancement as measures of career success (ibid). This study has shown that women are

more likely to aspire to lower management than men, and that women with low ambitions are

more likely to have stereotypical views about leaders. From this it could be argued that

stereotypical views could be a reason behind low ambitions (this is discussed further in

section 5.2), however there will be other factors involved such as those just mentioned

surrounding gender differences in the definition of career success.

It has also been suggested in the current literature that women may set up their own

business when they are unhappy with male-dominated hierarchies (Powell & Butterfield,

2003). Someone who runs their own business would be defined as top management, but

women who run their own firms are not shown in published statistics because these focus on

large publicly-held organisations (ibid). When these women are still in corporate hierarchies

they may show lower aspirations to top management, as they would rather be in control

themselves. Some of the females who selected lower management may not want to be in top

management in a large corporation but may, in fact, want to run their own business. If this

was to be the case, female aspirations may not be as low as they first appear.

72974

28

Overall, ambitions were generally lower than expected, with only 12% of all respondents

selecting “top management” as a realistic managerial level. Powell and Butterfield’s study

(2003), which asked different age groups of women about their career aspirations, found that

younger, less experienced women had higher ambitions. They suggested that this could

have been due to the influence of social trends like the US Women’s Movement or the

popularity of women in management positions (Powell & Butterfield, 2003). Perhaps a similar

ideology could be drawn up for this study, but for different reasons. It could be suggested

that the recent recession and poor job market that has dominated the media in the past few

years could have had an impact on aspirations. The Office of National Statistics (20122)

showed that in 2011 35.9% of recent graduates were in lower skilled jobs, which require only

compulsory education. Further to this, at the start of the recession in April 2008 recent

graduate employment was 90.2% (ibid). This fell by 3.7% to 86.5% by September 2009 (ibid).

Statistics like these could influence students’ realistic ambitions as they might not see

themselves reaching the level they believe they should. This could explain the difference

between ideal and realistic levels of management. Future research could further look into

this area to determine whether university students’ aspirations are influenced by economic

conditions.

5.2 Low Ambitions and Stereotypical Beliefs

Research has shown that a common leadership stereotype is that leaders have agentic

characteristics (Brenner, Tomkiewicz & Schein, 1989; Cann & Siegfried, 1990; Powell &

Butterfield, 2003; Schein, 1975). As predicted, this study has shown that women with low

ambitions rated leaders with high agentic traits, which could suggest that women with low

ambitions have more stereotypical beliefs about leaders. Further to this, it could be argued

that these stereotypical beliefs provide a reason behind women being more likely to aspire to

lower management than men.

72974

29

An interesting result was also found, in that women with high ambitions rated leaders with the

least agentic traits. Hoyt (2005) found that women with high self-efficacy reacted with

counter-stereotypic behaviour when presented with a perceived limitation of women’s ability.

If this was applied in a more general sense, women are often faced with negative

stereotypes, so perhaps those with high self-efficacy (in this case, ambitions) subconsciously

react to these barriers by seeing leaders more like themselves (less agentic).

As well as this, it is also interesting to note that men with a realistic level of top management

rated leaders with the least communion of all the different categories. Those with high

ambitions are technically more likely to become the next leaders. This could suggest that the

stereotype that women are not leaders is strengthened by males who aspire to the top, as

they also fail to associate a leader with feminine traits.

5.3 Low Ambitions and Trait Discrepancy

Results show that in general, people with lower ambitions had a larger discrepancy between

how they rated themselves and a leader across all traits, agreeing with the third hypothesis

This suggests that people with lower ambitions do not believe that they have the same

characteristics that a leader should, which could begin to explain the reason for their low

ambition. The effect of gender and low ambitions on trait discrepancy was approaching

marginal for women yet nowhere near being significant for men. This implies that women

with low ambitions are slightly more likely to have a greater discrepancy between self and

leader. If a woman is to conform to the female gender role by predominantly showing

feminine characteristics, she fails to meet the perceived requirements for the leadership role

which tends to call for masculine traits (Powell & Butterfield, 2003). In other words, this study

supports the theory that women who display feminine characteristics are less likely to aspire

to top leadership positions as these roles are seen as more masculine.

72974

30

5.4 Limitations

In terms of reliability, the rating scale of neutral traits for both self and leader, and agentic

traits for self were shown to have reliability problems. This study only uses 21 out of the 30

original items on the BSRI scale, so perhaps reliability could have been improved by using all

traits listed in Bem (1974). As previously discussed in Chapter 3 (Methodology), Holt and

Ellis (1998) suggested that BSRI, which was founded 40 years ago, may now be outdated.

There is a possibility that views and traditional stereotypical characteristics for women and

leaders have changed. For future studies, it could be recommended to carry out a test to

create more relevant, modern adjectives. For the original study, Bem (1974) asked men and

women to decide whether they believed 200 different traits to be male or female in identity.

Due to time constraints this would not have been viable for this research project.

All results found were very slight, and it may be the case that they are not strong enough to

provide solid evidence for the argument. This could potentially be due to reliability problems,

however, Powell and Butterfield (2003) sampled over 300 people on a similar study, so for

any future research it could also be suggested that more people were sampled.

Furthermore, the sample used may not have been totally representative of the entire student

population. Most of the respondents were from the University of Sussex, and in particular the

School of Business, Management and Economics. The study could have been made more

reliable if it had sampled students from across all areas of study, or from across the country.

Again, for future studies it can be suggested that the sample is taken across a broader

selection of the population and potentially whether students are the appropriate sample to

ask.

72974

31

6. Conclusions

This research project builds on current literature into why women are underrepresented in

leadership roles. The main aim of the study was to investigate whether women actually want

top management positions. If less women want to reach top management than men, this

could partially explain their underrepresentation in leadership positions.

The study has found that women have lower ambitions than men, in that women are more

likely to see themselves in lower management positions. Low ambitions were found to have a

slight link to stereotypical views, and a greater difference between views of self and views of

a leader. It could be suggested that these two findings might have influenced low ambitions.

However, there are other factors to take into account: men and women may have different

views in relation to career success – a low management position may be ‘high achieving’ for

someone who sees success in other areas such as a position with a good work-family

balance. Also, there is the possibility that some may rather have their own small firm and

have high aspirations in that sense, but in a corporate hierarchy may have relatively low

ambitions.

There were some reliability problems in the research, which could have hampered the

significance of results. A recommendation for future research would be to revise the BSRI

scale, as it may now be outdated.

To conclude, the evidence found in this study is not strong enough to argue that women have

a lack of interest in top management that could contribute to their underrepresentation in

these positions. However, as women were more likely to aspire to lower management, a

recommendation for future action could be for companies and other institutions (such as

schools and governments) to encourage women to aim for these positions which could

attempt to alter stereotypes of leadership. Stereotypes have already changed over the last

few decades, and women are reaching top management positions. If women are further

72974

32

encouraged to aspire to high positions, companies could be better able to utilise all available

talent to them – potentially improving business efficiency.

72974

33

72974

34

7. Appendix

7.1 Appendix 1: Example of Research Questionnaire

RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE

‘Women’s interest in top leadership positions’

SECTION 1

Please tick the appropriate box to indicate your answer:

Please state your gender:

Male

Female

Are you currently a university student or will you be attending university in the next

year?

Yes

No

How old are you?

_ _ _ _

Ideally, what level of management would you like to reach?

Top management (E.g. CEO/Chairman of a large firm)

Middle management (E.g. Head of department in a large firm)

Lower management (E.g. Supervisor in a large firm)

Worker (E.g. Operating Personnel)

Realistically, what level of management do you think you are likely to reach?

Top management (E.g. CEO/Chairman of a large firm)

Middle management (E.g. Head of department in a large firm)

Lower management (E.g. Supervisor in a large firm)

Worker (E.g. Operating Personnel)

_

72974

35

SECTION 2

The next section consists of adjectives that you need to indicate on the scale how

much like you that you believe it to be.

Please rate how you see yourself on the scale 1 – 5.

1 means that you never see yourself with that characteristic

2 means that it is rarely like you

3 means that it is equally like and unlike you

4 means that it is sometimes like you

5 means that you always see yourself with that characteristic

Place a tick in the appropriate box:

1 2 3 4 5

Affectionate

Truthful

Understanding

Dominant

Loyal

Assertive

Individualistic

Forceful

Independent

Compassionate

Ambitious

Unsystematic

Jealous

Gentle

Reliable

Helpful

Competitive

Sympathetic

Warm

Conscientious

Likeable

72974

36

SECTION 3

The next section asks about your view of a “good leader.” Indicate your answer by

ticking the box with the appropriate number:

1 means that this is nothing like a good leader

2 means that it is not really like a good leader

3 means that it is equally like and unlike a good leader

4 means that it is a little bit like a good leader

5 means that this is very much a good leader

1 2 3 4 5

Affectionate

Truthful

Understanding

Dominant

Loyal

Assertive

Individualistic

Forceful

Independent

Compassionate

Ambitious

Unsystematic

Jealous

Gentle

Reliable

Helpful

Competitive

Sympathetic

Warm

Conscientious

Likeable

72974

37

8. References

Abele, A. E. (2003) ‘The Dynamics of Masculine-Agentic and Feminine-Communal Traits:

Findings From a Prospective Study.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (4).

Pp. 768-776.

Ashby, J. S. & Schoon, I. (2010) ‘Career success: The role of teenage career aspirations,

ambition value and gender in predicting adult social status and earnings.’ Journal of

Vocational Behaviour. 77. Pp. 350-360.

Barreto, M. Ryan, M. K. & Schmitt, M. T. (2009) The glass ceiling in the 21st century:

Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington DC: American Psychological

Association.

Bass, B. M. (2008) The Bass Handbook of Leadership. 4th Ed. Free Press.

Bem, S. L. (1974) ‘The Measurement of Pyschological Androgyny.’ Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology. 42 (2). Pp. 155-162.

Brenner, J. M. Tomkiewicz, J. & Schein, V. E. (1989) ‘The Relationship Between Sex Role

Stereotypes and Requisite Management Revisited.’ Academy of Management Journal. 32

(3). Pp. 662-669.

Cann, A. & Siegfried, W. D. (1990) ‘Gender Stereotypes and Dimensions of Effective Leader

Behaviour.’ Sex Roles. 23 (7/8). Pp. 413-419.

Catalyst (2012) ‘Women in the Labour Force in the UK’. Available from:

http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-labour-force-uk. Accessed on: 13/02/2013

Eagly, A. H. & Carli, L. L. (2007) ‘Women and the labyrinth of leadership.’ Harvard Business

Review. 85 (9).

Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. (2002) ‘Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders’.

Psychological Review. 109 (3). Pp. 573-598.

Eagly, A. H. & Sczesny, S. (2009) ‘Stereotypes about women, men and leaders. Have times

changed?’ in Barreto, M. Ryan, M. K. & Schmitt, M. T. The glass ceiling in the 21st century:

Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington DC: American Psychological

Association. Pp. 21-47.

72974

38

Ellemers, N. Rink. F. Derks, B. & Ryan, M. K. (2012) ‘Women in high places: when and why

promoting women into top positions can harm them individually or as a group (and how to

prevent this)’. Research in Organisational Behaviour. 32. Pp. 163-187.

Ely, R. J. & Rhodes, D. L. (2010) ‘Women and Leadership; Defining the challenges.’ In N.

Nohria & R. Khurana (Eds.) Handbook of Leadership Theory and Practice. Pp. 377-410.

Boston, MA. Harvard Business Publishing.

Gray, M. P. & O’Brien, K. M. (2007) ‘Advancing the assessment of women’s career choices:

the career aspiration scale.’ Journal of career assessment. 15 (3) Pp. 317-337.

Heilman, M. E. (2001) ‘Description And Prescription: How Gender Stereotypes Prevent

Women’s Ascent Up The Organizational Ladder’. Journal of Social Issues. 57 (4) Pp. 657-

674.

Heilman, M. E. (2012) ‘Gender stereotypes and workplace bias’. Research in Organisational

Behaviour. 32. Pp. 113-135.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. (1995). ‘Sex Stereotypes: Do They Influence

Perceptions Of Managers?’ Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. 10 (6). Pp. 237–252.

Higgins, E. T. (1987) ‘Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect.’ Psychological

Review. 94 (3). Pp. 319-340.

Holt, C. L. & Ellis, J. B. (1998) ’Assessing the Current Validity of the Bem Sex-Role Inventory’.

Sex Roles. 39. (11/12) Pp. 929-941.

Howard, A., & Wellins, R. S. (2009). ‘Holding Women Back: Troubling Discoveries˛and Best

Practices for Helping Female Leaders Succeed.’ Pittsburgh: Development Dimensions

International.

Hoyt, C. L. (2005) ‘The Role of Leadership Efficacy and Stereotype Activation in Women’s

Identification With Leadership’. Journal of Leadership & Organisational Studies. 11 (4). Pp. 2-

14.

Jogulu, U. D. & Wood, G. J. (2006) ‘The Role of Leadership Theory in Raising the Profile of

Women in Management’. Equal Opportunities International. 25 (4). Pp. 236-250.

Livingston, R. W. & Pearce, N. A. (2009) ‘The Teddy-Bear Effect: Does Having a Baby Face

Benefit Black Chief Executive Officers?’ Psychological Science. 20. (10). Pp. 1229-1236.

72974

39

Office for National Statistics (20121) ‘EMP16: All in Employment by Status, Occupation, &

Sex: Quarter 2 (April-June 2011)’.

Office for National Statistics (20122) ‘Graduates in the Labour Market, 2012.’ Available from:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_259049.pdf. Accessed on: 9/5/2013

Powell, G. N. & Butterfield, Butterfield, D. A. (2003) ‘Gender, Gender Identity, and

Aspirations To Top Management’. Women in Management Review. 18 (1). Pp. 88-96.

Powell, G. N. & Mainiero, L. A. (1992) ‘ Cross-currents in the River of Time: Conceptualizing

the Complexities of Women’s Careers.’ Journal of Management. 18. Pp. 215-237.

Prentice, D. A. & Carranza, E. (2002) ‘What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are

allowed to be, and don’t have to be; the contents of prescriptive stereotypes.’ Psychology of

women quarterly. 26. Pp. 269-291.

Saunders, M. Lewis, P. Thornhill, A. (2007) Research Methods for Business Students. 5th Ed.

FT Prentice Hall.

Sigel, R. S. (1996) Ambition & accommodation: How women view gender relations.

University of Chicago Press.

Schein, V. E. (1975) ‘Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management

characteristics among female mangagers’. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60 (3) Pp. 340-

344.

Sturges, J. (1999) ‘What it Means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held

by male and female managers at different ages.’ British Journal of Management. 10. Pp.

239-252.

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2013) ‘Percentage of Population Using

Computer by Age, Sex, Country and Year’. Available from:

http://w3.unece.org/pxweb/dialog/Saveshow.asp?lang=1 Accessed on: 13/04/2013

Williams, M. J. & Chen, S. (2013, January). When “mom’s boss”: Control over domestic

decision making reduces women’s interest in workplace power. Invited presentation given at

the 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans,

LA, USA.