1. Women’s Hidden Leadership Potential Dr Abigail Player, Dr Georgina Randsley de Moura & Prof Dominic Abrams Centre for the Study of Group Processes, School of Psychology, University of Kent Eastern ARC Workshop on Gender Roles 31 st March – 1 st April 2016

2. Background Women well represented in entry-point & low-level management roles but visibility at higher levels very limited (Elacqua et al., 2009; Ibarra, Ely & Kolb, 2013). Very problematic: a)Leads to completely different career trajectories to men b)Not possible to effectively or fairly represent the needs of men and women in the policies of governments and organisations. c)Highlights prevalence of stereotyping discrimination in the recruitment and selection of leaders.

3. Recruitment & Selection Most important path to career development and leadership. A direct measure of women’s progress in the workplace (Eagly & Carli, 2006). Processes behind hiring & promotion are highly important to address because they lead to concerns about: Unfair discrimination Gender bias Creating gender-segregation in the workplace Decreasing the status of women in organizations (Bowen, Swim & Jacobs, 2000; Lamb, 1987; Sessa, 2001).

4. Performance Evaluations Historically, men tend to receive more favorable evaluations compared to their female counterparts (Nieva & Gutek, 1980; Olian et al. 1988; Davison & Burke, 2000). More recent evidence suggests women often receive higher job performance evaluations (Pema & Mehay, 2010; Green, Narasimhan & Tang, 2009; Roth, Pervis, & Bobko, 2012). Greater evidence of competence is needed to overcome the negative performance expectations that besiege women (Lyness & Heilman, 2006)

5. Leadership Potential The ability to perform in future more diverse leadership roles. Previous research has suggested that there is a preference for potential when making hiring decisions (Tormala, Jia, & Norton, 2012). Qualitative and anecdotal evidence suggests that men are promoted on their future potential, while women are promoted based on past accomplishments (McKinsey, 2011; Catalyst, 2013).

6. Aims To replicate findings of Tormala, Jia, & Norton (2012): i.Candidates with leadership potential will be more successful To empirically test the role of gender in the preference for potential: 1.Is there a preference in candidate gender e.g. CV evaluations, prediction of future success etc.? 2.Gender and leadership potential… a.Are male candidates with leadership potential more likely to be hired over male candidates with leadership performance? b.Are female candidates with leadership performance more likely to be hired over female candidates with leadership potential?

7. Study 1 Ninety-eight participants (59 male & 39 female, M age = 36.38, 79.6% employed) were recruited via a crowdsourcing platform and financially compensated for their contribution. 2 (Leadership Quality: leadership potential, leadership performance) X 2 (Candidate Gender: male, female) within-participants design. All candidate demographic information (e.g. qualifications, GPA etc.) was counterbalanced and CV were presented to participants in a random order.

9. Measures CV evaluation. “In your opinion, which applicant has the most impressive resume?” and “at present, which applicant had a more objectively impressive resume?”. Candidates were ranked (from 1 st - 4 th ). Future performance: “Which applicant do you think will perform better by the 5th year at the company?”. Evaluations were ranked (from 1 st - 4 th ).

10. Results – Study 1 Consistently see the same pattern of results… 1st – Male Candidate with Leadership Potential ( M = 1.75, SE =.09) 2nd – Female Candidate with Leadership Performance ( M = 2.06, SE =.08) 3rd - Female Candidate with Leadership Potential ( M = 2.89, SE =.08) 4th - Male Candidate with Leadership Performance ( M = 3.31, SE =.10)

11. Results – Study 1 CV evaluation : Main effect of Leadership Quality, F (1, 97) = 10.81, p =.001, η 2 =.10 Preference for leadership potential Leadership Quality X Candidate Gender interaction, F (1, 97) = 156.44, p <.001, η 2 =.54. Preference for male candidates with leadership potential over leadership performance Preference for female candidates with leadership performance over leadership potential

12. Results – Results Study 1 Future performance : Man effect of Leadership Quality, F (1, 97) = 7.62, p =.007, η 2 =.07 Preference for leadership potential over leadership performance Leadership Quality X Candidate Gender interaction, F (1, 97) = 92.36, p <.001, η 2 =.49. Preference for male candidates with leadership potential over leadership performance Preference for female candidates with leadership performance over leadership potential* * All ANOVA results for ranked data was qualified by loglinear analysis & chi-square

13. Study 2 Looked at leadership potential in senior management. Two hundred participants (74 male, 126 female M age = 35.02, 78.4% in full or part-time employment) were recruited via an online crowdsourcing platform in the United States. Within-participants design. Participants selecting a Director of Financial Affairs.

16. Measures Hiring intention: “Which candidate do you think will perform better by the 5 th year?”, “Which applicant do you think will be the most successful in their career?” and “Which applicant would you hire?”. Ranked 1 st – 4 th CV evaluation. “in your opinion, which applicant has the most impressive resume?” and “at present, which candidate had a more objectively impressive resume?”. Ranked 1 st – 4 th

17. Results – Study 2 Hiring Intention : Main effect of Leadership Quality, F (1, 198) = 34.27, p <.001, η 2 =.15 Preference for leadership potential Leadership Quality X Candidate Gender interaction, F (1, 198) = 170.66, p <.001, η 2 =.46 Preference for male candidates with leadership potential over leadership performance Preference for female candidates with leadership performance over leadership potential

18. Results – Study 2 CV Evalutaion : Main effect of Leadership Quality, F (1, 198) = 41.01, p <.001, η 2 =.15 Preference for leadership potential Leadership Quality X Candidate Gender interaction, F (1, 198) = 252.00, p <.001, η 2 =.56 Preference for male candidates with leadership potential over leadership performance Preference for female candidates with leadership performance over leadership potential

19. Discussion Replicated the preference for leadership potential Confirms current organisational and social psychological perspectives about the value of leadership potential. Develops theory further by confirming bias for leadership potential in men but leadership performance in women. Women’s leadership potential is hidden… Competence needed to overcome the negative performance expectations that surround women (but not men) in leadership roles. Catch 22? Previous research found highlighting past accomplishments decreased women’s hireability (Rudman, 1998).