Role congruity theory versus expectancy violation theory : women in leadership

The author investigated the conflicting predictions of role congruity theory and expectancy violation theory within the context of elite leadership. Because the current data illustrate female underrepresentation in higher leadership, the principal interest of the study was to determine how prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes affect participants' evaluations of female candidates applying to a chief executive officer (CEO) position. The candidates varied on gender and whether they presented agentic or communal traits. The participants indicated their evaluations of candidate competence, likeability, agentic and communal stereotypes, and the level to which they held prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes. The researcher found that participants rated the communal candidate higher in terms of likeability than the agentic candidate regardless of gender. Some tenets of role congruity theory were supported in that male participants indicated that the agentic candidate was more competent when they were male than female and that the communal candidate was more competent when they were female than male. Findings were inconclusive concerning whether descriptive or prescriptive stereotypes had greater influence on attitudes. 3 ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY VERSUS EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY Role Congruity Theory versus Expectancy Violation Theory: Women in Leadership The effect of stereotypes on people's attitudes toward others is well established in psychological research. However, a conflict exists in the predictions of evaluations as a function of stereotype violation. Role congruity theory and expectancy violation theory are very similar theories about stereotypes, which assume that an individual's violation of a category-based stereotype elicits a strong response in the observer (Bettencourt, 1997; Eagly and Karau, 2002). However, there is no consensus regarding whether the observer will react more positively or negatively when an outgroup member violates a negative stereotype of their salient demographic group. Role congruity theory posits that the observer's reaction would ultimately be negative based on the assumptions about what traits the person possesses (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Conversely, expectancy violation theory posits that the observer's reaction would be positive based on the assumptions about what traits the person should possess (Bettencourt, 1997). The following review of the literature will provide further explanation . of these diverging theories and describe how the current study will investigate their conflicting predictions in the context of gender bias in the workplace. Gender Bias in the Workplace As women are entering the labor force in increasing numbers, they continue to be underrepresented in certain occupations and fields. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2006­ 2010), women make up an increasing portion of management positions, and yet they are underrepresented in positions of higher leadership. For instance, women comprise only 22.2% of chief executives and legislators. Additionally, women are often underrepresented in leadership in traditionally male-dominated fields such as industrial production (18.2%), construction (7.1 %), and architecture and engineering (8.1 %; U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010). 4 ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY VERSUS EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY The concept of a glass ceiling or institutional obstacle preventing women from rising to positions of higher leadership or prestige is well known today. However, it is at times unclear how exactly this structure works to inhibit women's progress. Role congruity theory and expectancy violation theory offer explanations for this phenomenon though their exact predictions for evaluations of performance in the work place differ (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Bettencourt, 1997). Role Congruity Theory Role congruity theory attempts to explain how stereotypes and agentic and communal traits interact to influence women's success in the work place. Agentic traits are a group of characteristics more commonly ascribed to males, which concerns an "assertive, controlling, and confident" behavior type (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001, p. 783). Communal traits are a group of characteristics more commonly ascribed to females, which concerns an interpersonally sensitive and nurturing behavior type (Eagly and Johannessen-Schmidt, 2001). According to role congruity theory, a person's aptitude for a role in society is determined by the perceived difference between herlhis ascribed role's traits and the role shelhe is looking to achieve (Eagly & Karau, 2002). In order to better illustrate how these concepts interact in the workplace, I will define them here. Descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes. One way that gender bias manifests in society and in the workplace is through the prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes associated with gender. Prescriptive stereotypes are beliefs about what traits an outgroup member should possess; descriptive stereotypes in contrast are beliefs about what traits an outgroup member actually possesses (Burgess & Borgida, 1999). Stereotypes concerning women are often complementary and serve to create sexism in the workplace in two different ways (Glick & 5 ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY VERSUS EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY Fiske, 2001). Descriptive stereotypes about women, such as that they are nurturing, foster benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism is comprised of superficially chivalrous or positive attitudes toward women, which often lead to rewards of a female's stereotype-congruent behavior. On the other hand, those who practice benevolent sexism often divert females seeking stereotype-incongruent behaviors or roles from their goal. Prescriptive stereotypes about women, such as that they should work within feminine fields, foster hostile sexism. Hostile sexism is comprised of overtly negative attitudes toward women, which often leads to punishment for a female's stereotype-incongruent behavior via sexual harassment or other negative responses. Instances of benevolent and hostile sexism occur when female coworkers violate these prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes (Glick & Fiske, 2001). From a more practical perspective, Glick and Fiske (2001) hypothesized that hostile sexism and benevolent sexism complement each other and work together to create gender discrimination in the work place. Benevolent sexism occurs when superiors perceive female employees as too fragile to handle the responsibilities of higher leadership and protect them from the more challenging duties by denying a position or promotion. Hostile sexism occurs when coworkers punish accomplished women within a traditionally masculine role, such as a leadership position, through lowered likeability and sexual harassment (Burgess & Borgida, 1999). Through meta-analysis, researchers supported these hypotheses and found that women in lower-level, traditionally feminine occupations were liked more than women in higher-level, traditionally masculine occupations (Glick & Fiske, 2001). These findings have many practical applications. Rosen and lerdee (1974) questioned if women with equal qualifications would be evaluated as less capable for a managerial position than male candidates. They found that both male and female participants selected equally 6 ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY VERSUS EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY qualified female applicants significantly less often than they did male applicants for managerial positions. In addition, participants rated females lower than males on all measures including "potential for technical aspects of the job," "potential for long service to the organization," and "potential for fitting in well in the operation" (Rosen & Jerdee, 512). The findings suggest that female applicants were rejected more often than male applicants because their abilities were incongruent with the associated responsibilities of a managerial position. Additionally, Bobbit­ Zeher (2011) performed a content analysis of over 200 sex discrimination accounts in the workplace and found that discrimination most often occurred for female employees in a traditionally male-dominated field. Bobbit-Zeher stated that prescriptive stereotypes created a hostile working environment for female employees who violated these stereotypes. Also, Bobbit­ Zeher found that descriptive stereotypes kept female employees from moving into upper management as female applicants were considered not fit for the leadership role. Thus, prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes affect whether female professionals will be hired as well as the conditions of their working environment. Agentic and communal traits. Previous research has demonstrated how prescriptive and descriptive stereotypes prevent female employees from rising to positions of leadership. This occurs because of the differing leadership styles that peers ascribe to male and female professionals. Certain characteristics are often masculinized or feminized and this division is most clearly observed through the categorization of agentic and communal characteristics (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). As mentioned previously, agentic traits are a group of characteristics concemjng an assertive and dominant behavior type (Eagly & Johannesen­ Schmidt). These traits are also associated with the managerial or leadership role, as males in the past were most often seen as providers within the family (Eagly, 2001). Communal traits are a 7 ROLE CONGRUITY THEORY VERSUS EXPECTANCY VIOLATION THEORY group of characteristics concerning an interpersonally perceptive and encouraging behavior type (Eagly and Johannessen-Schmidt, 2001). These traits are also associated with the domestic role, as females in the past were most often seen as caretakers within the family (Eagly, 2001). Agentic and communal traits are perceived on a gender binary today. Abele (2003) docwnented the impact of agentic traits on career achievement in a two­ wave study of 1,930 graduates f