Leadership and Diversity Crystal L. Hoyt, Ph.D. Tufts University November, 2006.

Leadership and Diversity

Crystal L. Hoyt, Ph.D.Tufts University

November, 2006

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

PhysicalRoom A

PhysicalRoom B

PhysicalRoom C

CVE

NetworkedVR

Collaborative Virtual Environments

□Research benefits (Blascovich, Loomis, Beall, Swinth, Hoyt, & Bailenson, 2002)

□Superb control□Conduct research more efficiently□Impossible manipulations become possible

LeaderAdjustment


Situational Demands

PerformanceLeadership IdentificationWell-being

LeadershipEfficacy

ConstrualProcesses


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


Glass Ceiling



The Glass Ceiling

15%Women in US Congress

7.9%Women Highest Titles

<2% Women CEOs


Glass Ceiling



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’


Prepare for Leader Role

Procedure


Lead in VRStereotype Activation

Procedure


Lead in VR

PhysicalRoom A

PhysicalRoom B

PhysicalRoom C

CVE

NetworkedVR


Procedure

□Participant leads followers in 3 minute meeting □Using virtual reality technology□One-way communication with followers □Communication was recorded



Procedure



Procedure

□Final questionnaires:□Domain identification□Well-being □Perceived performance

□Debriefing


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


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


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


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


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


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


Situational Demands

Well-beingAttributions

LeadershipEfficacy

ConstrualProcesses


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



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



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


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


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


B = .63 B = -.27

Total Effect= -.51

Indirect Effect=.17 Direct Effect=.34

Well-BeingPortrayal


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

Leadership and Diversity Crystal L. Hoyt, Ph.D. Tufts University November, 2006.

Documents

Transcript of Leadership and Diversity Crystal L. Hoyt, Ph.D. Tufts University November, 2006.