leadership and diversity crystal l. hoyt, ph.d. tufts university november, 2006
TRANSCRIPT
Overview
□Introduction□Research Context□Women and Leadership□Latino/a Leaders□Related/Future Research
LeaderAdjustment
PerformanceLeadership IdentificationWell-beingAttributions
Leader PersonalResources
LeadershipEfficacy
ConstrualProcesses
Leadership and Diversity: A Model of Adjustment
Situational Demands
Stereotypes
Discrimination
□In vivo:□Leadership efficacy (Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson, & Watson,
2003)
□Examined the role of leadership efficacy in leaders’ responses to demanding situations
□In vivo and in VR:□Leadership in the virtual workplace (Hoyt &
Blascovich, 2003)
□Examined leadership in face to face and computer mediated contexts
Past Research:A Multi-Method Approach
A New Research Tool
□Immersive Virtual Environment Technology □Immersion in circumambient environment
created by a graphics computer□Explore the environment by moving head and
can interact with environment
□Classic social influence effects are found in VEs (Hoyt, Blascovich, Swinth, 2003)
Collaborative Virtual Environments
□Research benefits (Blascovich, Loomis, Beall, Swinth, Hoyt, & Bailenson, 2002)
□Superb control□Conduct research more efficiently□Impossible manipulations become possible
LeaderAdjustment
Leader PersonalResources
Situational Demands
PerformanceLeadership IdentificationWell-being
LeadershipEfficacy
ConstrualProcesses
Leadership and Diversity: A Model of Adjustment
Stereotypes
Discrimination
The Glass Ceiling
"In government, in business, and in the professions there may be a day when women will be looked upon as persons. We are, however, far from that day as yet."
-Eleanor Roosevelt
The Glass Ceiling
46.4%Women in the U.S. Labor Force
57.5%Women Obtaining Bachelor Degrees
50.3%Women in Managerial/Professional Positions
The Glass Ceiling
15%Women in US Congress
46.4%Women in the U.S. Labor Force
Glass Ceiling
57.5%Women Obtaining Bachelor Degrees
50.3%Women in Managerial/Professional Positions
The Glass Ceiling
15%Women in US Congress
7.9%Women Highest Titles
<2% Women CEOs
46.4%Women in the U.S. Labor Force
Glass Ceiling
57.5%Women Obtaining Bachelor Degrees
50.3%Women in Managerial/Professional Positions
Good Leadership is a Manly Business….or so many think….
□Gender leader stereotype□Good leaders are described with masculine
attributes□Stereotypically male qualities are thought
necessary to being a successful leader
MENAGENTIC•Confident•Assertive
•Independent •Decisive
WOMENCOMMUNAL
•Kind•Helpful
•Sympathetic•Concerned for others
Role Incongruity□ “…people could perceive
me only as one thing or the other - either a hardworking professional woman or a conscientious and caring hostess ... It was becoming clear to me that people who wanted me to fit into a certain box, traditionalist or feminist, would never be entirely satisfied with…my many different, and sometimes paradoxical, roles ...
□ “We were living in an era in which some people still felt deeply ambivalent about women in positions of public leadership and power.”
Biased Perceptions and Evaluations
□Women are presumed to be less competent leaders than men and less worthy of the leadership position across a variety of contexts
□Women are evaluated less favorably when they demonstrate behaviors that fulfill prescriptions of the leader role
Responses to Stereotypes
□Stereotype Threat (Steele &
Aronson, 1995)
□Stereotype Threat & Women Leaders (Davies, Spencer, Steele, 2005)
□Exposure to gender-stereotypic TV commercials undermined female participants’ leadership aspirations on an upcoming task.
Stereotypes Are Not Always Threatening
□Stereotype Reactance□Behave in manner inconsistent with
stereotype □Women blatantly presented
w/stereotype, outperform men at bargaining table (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)
Leadership Efficacy & Stereotype Reactance
□Leadership Self-efficacy□One’s perception regarding his or her
general capabilities to lead
□Leadership efficacy effective in predicting leadership, group, & organizational outcomes (Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson & Watson, 2003)
□Leadership efficacy----outcomes relationship is enhanced under demanding situations (Murphy,
2001)
Predicted Pattern of Results□When blatantly presented with the gender
leader stereotype, women with high levels of leadership efficacy will react against it.
LeadershipIdentification
05
10152025
Low Efficacy High Efficacy
StereotypeControl
Psychological Well-Being
Performance
Research DesignHoyt & Blascovich, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations
□Participants□51 women (Study 1)□72 women (Study 2)
□Independent variables:□Stereotype activation
□(Primed or not)
□Leadership efficacy □(High or Low)
□Dependent variables:□Perceived
performance □Rated performance□Domain
identification □Well-being
□Self-esteem □Depressed affect
Procedure
□Binder containing images of male leaders
□Instructions:□Men outnumber women in top
leadership roles□One possible reason is that men
are more effective leaders□This research is looking at these
differences
Stereotype Activation
Procedure
□Employee-hiring task□ President of James Frick Inc.□ Chair selection committee hiring
new associate□ Influence & motivate followers to
make best decision□ Provided relevant materials
□ Memo from CEO; Applicant information packets
□Protocol□ 7-minute preparation period□ 3-minute meeting with ‘vice-chairs’
Stereotype Activation
Prepare for Leader Role
Procedure
Prepare for Leader Role
Lead in VR
PhysicalRoom A
PhysicalRoom B
PhysicalRoom C
CVE
NetworkedVR
Stereotype Activation
Procedure
□Participant leads followers in 3 minute meeting □Using virtual reality technology□One-way communication with followers □Communication was recorded
Prepare for Leader Role
Lead in VRStereotype Activation
Procedure
□Final questionnaires:□Domain identification□Well-being □Perceived performance
□Debriefing
Prepare for Leader Role
Lead in VRFinal
QuestionnairesStereotype Activation
Perceived PerformancePredicted Pattern
Low Eff High Eff
Scale: 0 to 6 F(1,117)= 9.08, p<.01, η2 = .07
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Efficacy High Efficacy
Leadership Efficacy
Pe
rce
ive
d P
erf
orm
an
ce
Stereotype
Control
Scale: 1 to 9 F(1,101)= 2.90, p=.09, η2 = .03
Rated PerformancePredicted Pattern
Low Eff High Eff
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Low Efficacy High Efficacy
Leadership Efficacy
Ra
ted
Pe
rfo
rma
nc
e
Stereotype
Control
F(1,117)= 5.91, p<.05, η2 = .05Scale: 0 to 6
Domain IdentificationPredicted Pattern
Low Eff High Eff
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Efficacy High Efficacy
Leadership Efficacy
Do
ma
in I
de
nti
fic
ati
on
Stereotype
Control
Self-Esteem Depressed Affect
Well-Being
Scale: 0 to 6
F(1,67)= 5.10, p<.05, η2 = .07
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Efficacy High Efficacy
Leadership Efficacy
Se
lf-E
ste
em
Stereotype
Control
F(1,66)= 4.48, p<.05, η2 = .06
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Low Efficacy High Efficacy
Leadership Efficacy
De
pre
ss
ed
Aff
ec
t
In Sum
□Leadership self-efficacy moderates the following responses to stereotype activation:□Perceived and actual performance□Domain identification□Well-being (self-esteem and depressed affect)
□High efficacy leaders demonstrated reactance responses
Discussion
□The gender leader stereotype has important implications for not only perceptions and evaluations of women leaders, but also for the responses of the leaders themselves.
□Continued research in this area and a better understanding of high efficacy women’s reactance responses may provide us with tools to help buffer those more adversely affected by stereotypes.
LeaderAdjustment
Leader PersonalResources
Situational Demands
Well-beingAttributions
LeadershipEfficacy
ConstrualProcesses
Leadership and Diversity: A Model of Adjustment
Stereotypes
Discrimination
Latino Leaders: Performance Feedback and Well-Being
Hoyt, Aguilar, Kaiser, Blascovich, & Lee (in press), Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
□Latinos and other minorities in leadership positions may experience difficulty making attributions to others’ evaluations of their leadership performance.
□Attributional ambiguity
□Uncertainty as to whether the feedback is a veridical reflection of their leadership abilities or a reflection based on stereotypes and prejudices (Crocker & Major, 1989)
Attributions and Well-Being
□Psychologically healthy people□Attribute POSITIVE events….
□Internal, global, stable aspects of self
□Attribute NEGATIVE events….□Sources external to self
□Visibly Latino leaders will attribute feedback more to discrimination compared to visibly White leaders.□Negative feedback: self-protective
effects□Higher well-being (Study 1 and Study 2)
□Positive feedback: undermining effects□Lower well-being (Study 2)
Hypotheses
Study 1: Methodology
□Participants□40 participants (20
Latino, 20 White)
□Independent variables□Portrayal in the Virtual
Environment □Latino or White
□Participant Ethnicity □Latino or White
□Dependent Variables□Well-Being
□Attributions to discrimination
□ Participants performed the leadership task using Immersive Virtual Environment Technology
Head Mounted Display (HMD)
(C)
Position & Orientation Tracking
(A)
RenderingComputer
(B)
Leader’s view of the two followers during the meetingin the immersive virtual environment.
Procedure
Procedure
□Portrayals in the Virtual Environment:□ Latino or White□ Portrayal matched
gender of participant
□Received negative feedback from followers
□Leaders completed final questionnaires□Attributions □Well-being
Portrayal:Portrayal:Latina femaleLatina female
Portrayal:Portrayal:White maleWhite male
Study 1: Results
□Well-Being □Attributions
Scale: 0 to 6F (1, 35) = 4.94, p < .05, 2 = .12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
White Representation Latino Representation
Ethnic Representation
We
ll-B
ein
g
F (1, 35) = 3. 19, p = .08, 2 = .08.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
White Representation Latino Representation
Ethnic Representation
Att
rib
uti
on
s t
o D
isc
rim
ina
tio
n
Study 1: Mediational Analyses
□Attributions to discrimination as a mediator of the effects of portrayal on well-being.
B = .55 B = .36
Total Effect=.72
Attributions to Discrimination
Indirect Effect=.19 Direct Effect=.53
Well-BeingPortrayal
Study 2: Methodology
□Participants□59 Latino participants
□Independent variables□Portrayal in the Virtual
Environment □Latino or White
□Leadership Feedback □Positive of Negative
□Procedures□ Same as Study 1 except
feedback
Study 2: Results
□Well-Being □Attributions
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
White Representation Latino Representation
Ethnic Representation
Att
rib
uti
on
s t
o D
isc
rim
ina
tio
n
F (1, 55) = 5.91, p = .02, 2 = .10 F (1, 55) = 7.22, p = .01, 2 = .12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
WhiteRepresentation
LatinoRepresentation
Ethnic Representation
We
ll-B
ein
g
Positive Feedback
Negative Feedback
F (1, 55) = 7.22, p = .01, 2 = .12
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
WhiteRepresentation
LatinoRepresentation
Ethnic Representation
We
ll-B
ein
g
Positive Feedback
Negative Feedback
Study 2: Mediational Analyses
Negative Feedback:
Positive Feedback:
B = .44 B = .20
Total Effect=.53 .23 +Indirect Effect=.09 Direct Effect=.44 .
Well-BeingPortrayal
Attributions to Discrimination
B = .63 B = -.27
Total Effect= -.51
Indirect Effect=.17 Direct Effect=.34
Well-BeingPortrayal
Attributions to Discrimination
B = .52 B = .32
Total Effect=.71 .23 +Indirect Effect=.16 Direct Effect=.55 .
Well-BeingPortrayal
Attributions to DiscriminationStudy 1 & 2 combined:
In Sum
□Attributing feedback to one’s group membership can buffer against negative feedback but can undermine their ability to take credit for positive feedback in the leadership context.
LeaderAdjustment
Leader PersonalResourcesSituational
Demands
PerformanceLeadership IdentificationWell-beingAttributions
Leadership Efficacy
Construal Processes
Situational Moderators
Group CompositionCounter-stereotypic
Exemplars
Related/Future Research
Stereotypes
Discrimination
Cognitive LoadMedia Images
Acknowledgements□ Jim Blascovich□ Cheryl Kaiser□ Lauren Aguilar□ Kevin Lee
□ Undergraduate Research Assistants□ Lauren Aguilar□ Donovan Bean□ Lauren Davidovitz□ Michelle Denni□ Sarah Estrada□ Sarah Haskell□ Diana Hill□ Annie Lamson□ Kevin Lee□ Elizabeth LeMoine□ Robin Lensing□ Cari Nicholson□ Molly Thompson