162-12 Potential Mediating Mechanisms for Why Being Gay Influences Leadership Fit

Summary

Introduction

DiscussionMethod

References

Gay male targets are seen as more communal & better suited

for feminine management positions, but no less agentic nor less

suited for neutral or masculine management positions

compared to otherwise identical heterosexual targets.

Stereotypes About Gay Men

→ Like women, gay men are viewed as more feminine than

heterosexual men9.

→ These stereotypes influence beliefs about gay men’s

appearance, traits, & roles6.

→ This incongruence between the social expectations for gay

men & for leaders has implications for gay men’s likelihood of

being hired into, retained, & promoted into prototypical

leadership positions in organizations.

Lack of Fit Model

→ Women are seen as more communal (feminine traits) & less

agentic (masculine traits) than men2, 4.

→ Stereotypes about middle managers are more similar to men

than to women23.

→ This descriptive misfit results in less favorable evaluations of

women’s potential for leadership compared to men’s2, 8.

Hypotheses

→ H1: Gay male targets will be perceived as less suitable for

gender-neutral & masculine management positions (H1a) &

more suitable for feminine management positions (H1b) than

otherwise identical heterosexual targets .

→ H2: Gay male targets will be perceived as less agentic (H2a)

& more communal (H2b) than heterosexual targets.

→ H3: Ratings of target agency & communion will help explain

why gay male targets will be perceived as less suitable for

gender-neutral & masculine management positions & more

suitable for feminine management positions than

heterosexual targets.

→ RQ1: Does the out status of the gay target moderate these

trait or suitability ratings?

→ RQ2: Does competence moderate these trait & suitability

ratings?

Design

→ The current study design is a 4 (target sexuality: gay, gay & out, gay & in the

closet, & heterosexual) × 3 (target competence: no mention, moderate

competence, high competence) between-subjects design.

Model Fit

→ The fit indices indicate good model fit (χ2(606)=1275.96, p<.001; χ2/df=2.11;

RMSEA=.04, p=.99; CFI=.97; TLI=.97; SRMR=.03).

Structural Model Specification

→ Interaction terms between target competence & target sexuality did not

significantly predict any of the outcomes (ps>.14)

→ Interaction terms were removed as predictors & treatments with differing

target competence were collapsed.

→ The gender-neutral & masculine leadership suitability second-order factors

were correlated at r = .94,indicating they be collapsed into one.Participants

→ A total of 609 MTurk (Mechanical Turk) workers participated in the study.

→ A manipulation check reduced the final sample to a total of 546 MTurk

workers (43% women; Mage=34.41, SDage=12.11).

→ Racial breakdown: 78% White or Caucasian, 8% Asian, 6% Black or African

American, 5% Hispanic or Latino/a, & 2% as multi-racial.

Procedures

→ Participants were recruited & compensated using an online work platform

(MTurk) where they were given $0.75 for their participation.

→ Participants were told that there were six management positions open within

a fictional company & were asked to rate their fictional target’s levels of

communion & agency, & his suitability for the six positions.

Materials

→ Participants were randomly assigned to read one of twelve vignettes about a

fictional male employee within a fictional company. Experimental

manipulations of the vignettes are described below.

→ Sexual orientation: the target was described as gay or heterosexual.

→ Outness: the gay target was out to his coworkers (gay out), in the closet (gay

closet), or there was no mention (gay).

→ Competence: the target was said to be competent & ready for promotion

(high), considered for promotion (moderate), or no mention.

Measures

→ Communion & agency: 8-item measure each1.

“How well do each of the following adjectives describe Joe?”

→ Management suitability: 4-item measure for each management position.

“How effective would Joe be in this position?”

→ The fit indices indicate acceptable model fit (χ2(548)=1777.68, p<.001;

χ2/df=3.24; RMSEA=.06, p<.001; CFI=.95; TLI=.95; SRMR=.04).

Results

1. Abele, A. E., Uchronski, M., Suitner, C., & Wojciszke, B. (2008). Towards and operationalization of fundamental

dimensions of agency and communion: Trait content ratings in five countries considering valence and frequency of

word occurrence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(7), 1202-1217.

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

Review, 109(3), 573-598.

3. Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and

transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist, 65, 201-215.

4. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5,

269-298.

5. Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes

and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 48(3-4), 115-130.

6. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion

theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11(1), 83-96.

7. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-

analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616-642.

8. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of

upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777-785.

9. Madon, S. (1997). What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex

Roles, 37(9-10), 663-685.

10. Rieger, G., Linsenmeier, J. A. W., Gygax, L., Garcia, S., Bailey, J. M. (2010). Dissecting “gaydar”: Accuracy and

the role of masculinity-femininity. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(1), 124-140.

11. Rule, N. O., & Ambady, N. (2008). Brief exposures: Male sexual orientation is accurately perceived at 50ms.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4), 1100-1105.

12. Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33-41.

Figure 1: Structural Model Assessed

Suitability for

Feminine

Management

Positions

Suitability for

Masculine

Management

Positions

Communion

Agency

.33**

.04

.26*

.53***

Gay closet target

vs. Hetero target

Gay target

vs. Hetero target

Gay out target

vs. Hetero target

.37**

–.04

.55***

.14

.31*

–.05

.46***

(.58***

)

.08(.07)

.44***

(.66***

)

.00(.09)

.56***

(.65***

)

.10(.10)

Note: Unstandardized coefficients are presented. Correlations among the variables, indirect

effects, factor indicators, & residual variances are not included for presentation purposes.

Total effects are presented in parentheses. * p<.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001

Hypothesis Testing

→ H1: Gay male targets were perceived as more suitable for feminine

management positions than heterosexual targets.

→ H2: Gay male targets were perceived as more communal than heterosexual

targets,

→ H3: Ratings of target communion helped explain why gay male targets were

perceived as more suitable for feminine management positions than

heterosexual targets (indirect effects of target sexuality predictors on feminine

suitability through communion ps<.06; all other indirect effects ps>.21).

→ RQ1: Out status did not moderate these relationships.

→ RQ2: Competence did not moderate these relationships.

Vignette Example (Gay Out & Highly Competent)

Joe is a 34-year old middle manager at Northern Industries Corp. He lives in a

residential area only 20 minutes from his work with his Labrador Retriever, Sam.

Joe has worked at Northern Industries Corp. for 8 years & has risen gradually in

rank over his tenure & upper management sees him as highly competent &

ready for immediate promotion. Joe is a gay male, & “came out” to his fellow

colleagues at work a while back. At this time, Northern Industries Corp will be

promoting Joe to an upper management position.

Limitations

→ Short vignettes with minimal information were presented,

limiting external validity of the study. On the other hand, the

internal validity of the study was strengthened by direct

manipulation of sexual orientation as opposed to indirect

manipulations (via résumés) seen in previous studies5.

→ Our manipulation of sexual orientation was meager, just

mentioning the target’s sexuality briefly. However simple, this

manipulation did significantly alter perceptions of the target’s

femininity & suitability for feminine leadership positions, but

not the target’s masculinity & suitability for masculine

leadership positions.

→ Only positively-valenced variables are being rated, potentially

confounding results; however, there were not associations

across all variables in the model, indicating that there are

stronger effects than simply valence of the outcomes.

Implications

→ Gay men are perceived as more feminine, but no less

masculine than heterosexual men. These traits help to

explain why gay men are perceived as more suited for

feminine leadership positions than heterosexual men.

→ Transformational leadership is often described as embracing

positive characteristics stereotypically assigned to both

women & men, becoming the ideal for many situations7.

→ Gay men may be perceived as having more potential of

exhibiting transformational leadership behaviors.

Future Directions

→ Lesbians were not examined, but replications of this study

could compare gay and heterosexual men, and lesbian and

heterosexual women across similar, if not identical outcomes.

→ “Gaydar” is a real, observable phenomena and largely

underestimated in research focusing on disclosure10, 11.

vs