Gender and leadership stereotypes theory: is it reaching the boundaries?

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to answer whether the notion of the gender and leadership stereotypes theory has already reached its boundaries. Design/methodology/approach To accomplish such a goal, it relies on the extant literature looking for more robust findings, problems, disruptions and pathways toward building a better understanding of this problematic. Findings The evidence gleaned throughout this paper suggests that the interplay between gender and leadership stereotypes theory has reached its boundaries. Moreover, the traditional sex stereotype or gender traits approach within companies seems to be highly limited taking into account that it tends to nurture rivalry and prejudice among people of different genders. Rather than focusing on leader sex approach or egalitarian quotas, in terms of leadership role and despite the fair argument of diversity, the author proposes that it is wiser to concentrate on a meritocratic view. Practical implications It suggests that an androgyny leadership style appears to be welcomed in organizations, yet some shift about this understanding may be occurring. At present, however, female aspirants of leadership roles should work increasingly toward adapting themselves to this profile. In doing so, it is likely that they may be benefited from organizational evaluations in which the merit issue constitutes an imperative. Originality/value Overall, it is expected to contribute to theory by arguing that the traditional understanding of gender and leadership stereotypes theory is not suitable anymore to deal with the uncertainties and complexities that shape today’s business arenas. On the contrary, it argues that such approach tends only to encourage gender bias and to nurture a somewhat sex war game in detriment of organizations efficiency and productivity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 19 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.