Overlooked Leadership Potential: The Preference for Leadership Potential in Job Candidates Who Are Men vs. Women.

Abigail Player,Dominic Abrams,Ana C. Leite,Fatima Tresh,Georgina Randsley de Moura

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00755

Abstract

Two experiments tested the value people attach to the leadership potential and leadership performance of female and male candidates for leadership positions in an organizational hiring simulation. In both experiments, participants (Total N = 297) valued leadership potential more highly than leadership performance, but only for male candidates. By contrast, female candidates were preferred when they demonstrated leadership performance over leadership potential. The findings reveal an overlooked potential effect that exclusively benefits men and hinders women who pursue leadership positions that require leadership potential. Implications for the representation of women in leadership positions and directions for future research are discussed.

Highlights

“Women hold up more than half the sky and represent much of the world’s unrealized potential.” Ki Moon (2011)
We hypothesized that participants would be more willing to hire candidates with leadership potential and would expect those candidates to be more successful than candidates with leadership performance (Hypothesis 1)
We expected participants to rank the male candidate with leadership potential higher than the male candidate with leadership performance on the evaluation of résumés and expected future performance

Summary

Introduction

“Women hold up more than half the sky and represent much of the world’s unrealized potential.” Ki Moon (2011). Previous research has found that assessments of women were higher than those of men on leadership performance but lower than those of men on vision and strategy (e.g., Ibarra and Obodaru, 2009; Roth et al, 2012). Differential ratings on vision and strategy might have consequences for leadership selection given that strategic insight, and analytical skills in general, are acknowledged as key indicators of leadership potential (e.g., Marshall-Mies et al, 2000; Silzer and Church, 2009; Dries and Pepermans, 2012). Women were rated lower than men on the measure of future performance and promotability (Roth et al, 2012) Such differences might arise partly because women are more likely to take on tasks which require competence, but do not improve chances of promotion (e.g., committee service; Babcock et al, 2017). Research on the power of gender stereotypes and decisions about leadership is conclusive – all else being equal, women are judged more harshly than men (e.g., Rudman and Glick, 2001; Lyness and Heilman, 2006; Blau and DeVaro, 2007)

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion