Breaking the Scholastic Glass Ceiling: An Exploration of Gendered Judgements on Women Leaders

Abstract

Do people respond differently to decisions made by women leaders? Are women punished for their leadership behaviors? Despite making up almost half of the workforce in the U.S. women make it to top leadership and executive positions much less often than men. One factor that might impact this is peoples’ perceptions of women as leaders. This project aims at measuring gender biases toward leadership as they apply to the executive of the school district: the superintendent. By simulating a controversial superintendent decision, I test whether women superintendents are judged more harshly for exhibiting assertive leadership qualities than their male counterparts. I also test whether the mention of a woman leader triggers sexist attitudes. I use the concepts of social role theory to hypothesize that because of the expectation of women in traditionally nurturing and unassertive roles, the women superintendents will have more negative feedback and support for their decision than the men. Participants responded to a vignette about a school opening/closure decision by a superintendent regarding the present COVID-19 pandemic. A 2x2 experimental design is utilised, with both the gender of the superintendent and the school closure decision being manipulated. Results showed no correlation between the gender of superintendent and either the leadership judgement measure or the sexism measure. However, the expected demographics (men and conservatives) showed higher sexism than their counterparts. Further research is recommended with a refined study design, as there is question as to how well participants received the intended treatment through the current design.