Why do women receive equal or better performance ratings than men in managerial assessment centers even when they are structured in ways that systematically disadvantage them? This study provides the first attempt to understand this managerial assessment center gender paradox using in-depth interviews with managerial assessment center evaluators for a large semi-military governmental organization. The study revealed that the managerial assessment center was a gendered environment in which organizational practices, language used, and the underlying logic establish and reinforce men as assertive or protectors and women as weak and in need of protection. In accordance with the managerial assessment center gender paradox, women were successful at the managerial assessment center despite systemic bias against them. Interpretive analysis revealed that women candidates generate discomfort that evaluators alleviate by increased attention to the extent to which they conform to gender ideology. We coin the term ‘benevolence effect’ to describe evaluators’ tendency to over-valuate and advance women candidates who conform to traditional stereotypes of white femininity. The benevolence effect paradoxically contributes to the preservation and perpetuation of the sexual binary and the idealization of the abstract manager as male-bodied in the organization, even as it contributes to the promotion of women.
AckerJ (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society4(2): 139–158.
2.
AckerJ (2004) Gender, capitalism and globalization. Critical Sociology30(1): 17–41.
3.
AckerJ (2006) Inequality regimes: Gender, class and race in organizations. Gender and Society20(4): 441–464.
4.
AhmedS (2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5.
AhmedS (2019) A complaint biography. Biography42(3): 514–523.
6.
Alimo-MetcalfeB (1993) Women in management: Organizational socialization and assessment practices that prevent career advancement. International Journal of Selection and Assessment1(2): 68–83.
7.
Alimo-MetcalfeB (1995) An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership. Women in Management Review10(2): 3–14.
8.
Amram-KatzSSasson-LevyO (2005) Hegemony of combat masculinity and its gendered implications for officer training (Heb). Between Arenas4: 66–76.
9.
AndersonNLievensFVan DamK, et al. (2006) A construct- driven investigation of gender differences in a leadership-role assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology91(3): 555–566.
10.
BakerDTBrewisDN (2020) The melancholic subject: A study of self-blame as a gendered and neoliberal psychic response to loss of the ‘perfect worker’. Accounting, Organizations and Society82: 101093.
11.
BakerDTKelanEK (2019) Splitting and blaming: The psychic life of neoliberal executive women. Human Relations72(1): 69–97.
12.
BeckerD (2002) Gender differences in assessment centers for identifying managerial potential: Ability differences or assessment bias (Heb). Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.
13.
BenschopYVan den BrinkMDoorewaardH, et al. (2013) Discourses of ambition, gender and part-time work. Human Relations66(5): 699–723.
14.
BoldryJWoodWKashyDA (2001) Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 689–705.
15.
BoyceLAHerdAM (2003) The relationship between gender role stereotypes and requisite military leadership characteristics. Sex Roles49: 365–378.
16.
BrownAD (2000) Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. Journal of Management Studies37(1): 45–75.
BrownW (2005) Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy. Theory & Event7(1): 37–59.
19.
CardenLLCallahanJL (2007) Creating leaders or loyalists? Conflicting identities in a leadership development programme. Human Resource Development International10(2): 169–186.
20.
ChaY (2013) Overwork and the persistence of gender segregation in occupations. Gender & Society27(2): 158–184.
21.
CikaraMFiskeST (2007) Cooperation ≠ Consent: How women react to their place, based on social relations and ambivalent sexism. Social Psychology of Gender Advances in Group Processes24: 99–122.
22.
CollinsPH (2000) Black Feminist Thought. New York: Routledge.
23.
CollinsonDHearnJ (1994) Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender, Work & Organization1(1): 2–22.
24.
CollinsonDHearnJ (1996) Men as Managers, Managers as Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities and Managements. New York: SAGE.
CuddyAJFiskeSTGlickP (2004) When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues60(4): 701–718.
27.
de CastellaT (2014) How did LEGO become a gender battleground?BBC News Magazine, 6 August. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28660069 (accessed 12 January 2023).
28.
DeanMARothPLBobkoP (2008) Ethnic and gender subgroup differences in assessment center ratings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology93(3): 685–691.
29.
DiekmanBAEaglyAEJohnstonAM (2010) Social structure. In: DovidioJFHewstoneMGlickP, et al (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination. London: SAGE, 209–224.
30.
DuttonJEWorkmanKMHardinAE (2014) Compassion at work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior1(1): 277–304.
31.
EaglyAHCarliLL (2003) The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly14(6): 807–834.
32.
EaglyAHCarliLL (2007) Through the Labyrinth, the Truth About How Women Become Leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Scholl Press.
33.
EaglyAHKarauSJMakhijaniMG (1995) Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin117(1): 125–145.
34.
ElyRJMeyersonDE (2010) An organizational approach to undoing gender: The unlikely case of offshore oil platforms. Research in Organizational Behavior30: 3–34.
35.
ElyRJPadavicI (2007) A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences. Academy of Management Review32(4): 1121–1143.
36.
FairhurstGTGrantD (2010) The social construction of leadership: A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly24(2): 171–210.
37.
FarhCIOhJKHollenbeckJR, et al. (2020) Token female voice enactment in traditionally male-dominated teams: Facilitating conditions and consequences for performance. Academy of Management Journal63(3): 832–856.
38.
FletcherJK (2004) The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly15(5): 647–661.
39.
Fogiel-BijaouiS (2002) Familism, postmodernity and the state: The case of Israel. The Journal of Israeli History21(1–2): 38–62.
40.
FordJ (2006) Discourses of leadership: Gender, identity and contradiction in a UK public sector organization. Leadership2(1): 77–99.
41.
FotakiM (2013) No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies34(9): 1251–1275.
42.
FotakiM (2021) Feminist research changing organizations and societies: Taking stock and looking to the future. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology30(3): 390–399.
43.
GlickPFiskeST (2001) An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist56(2): 109–118.
44.
GlickPFiskeST (2006) Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly21(1): 119–135.
45.
GloorJLLiXLimS, et al. (2018) An inconvenient truth? Interpersonal and career consequences of ‘maybe baby’ expectatinos. Journal of Vocational Behavior104: 44–58.
46.
GreedC (2000) Women in the construction professions: Achieving critical mass. Gender, Work & Organization7(3): 181–196.
47.
GündemirS (2010) Shattering ‘The Minority Glass Ceiling’: Does valuing diversity increase the emergence of minority leaders? Unpublished Master Thesis, VU University, Amsterdam.
48.
GündemirSHomanACDe DreuCK, et al. (2014) Think leader, think white? Capturing and weakening an implicit pro-white leadership bias. PLoS One9(1): e83915.
49.
HardingNFordJFotakiM (2013) Is the ‘F’-word still dirty? A past, present and future of/for feminist and gender studies in Organization. Organization20(1): 51–65.
50.
HarrisH (2000) Failing ‘white woman’: Interrogating the performance of respectability. Theatre Journal52(2): 183–209.
51.
HeilmanEMWallenAS (2010) Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology46(4): 664–667.
52.
HeilmanEMWallenASFuchsD, et al. (2004) Penalties for success: Reaction to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology89(3): 416–427.
53.
HerdAMAlagarajaMCumberlandDM (2016) Assessing global leadership competencies: The critical role of assessment center methodology. Human Resource Development International19(1): 27–43.
54.
HolvinoE (2010) Intersections: The simultaneity of race, gender and class in organization studies. Gender, Work & Organization17(3): 248–277.
55.
hooksb (1984) Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Boston, MA: South End Press.
56.
HowardA (1997) A reassessment of assessment centers: Challenges for the 21st century. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality12(5): 13–52.
JosselsonR (2004) The hermeneutics of faith and the hermeneutics of suspicion. Narrative Inquiry14(1): 1–28.
59.
KanterRM (1977) Some effects of proportions on group life. In: ReikerPPCarmenE (eds) The Gender Gap in Psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Springer, 53–78.
60.
Karazi-PreslerTSasson-LevyO (2022) Two steps forward, one step back: Gender relations in contemporary Israel. In: Ben-PoratGFenigerYFilcD, et al (eds) Routledge Handbook on Contemporary Israel. Routledge, 337–350.
61.
Karazi-PreslerTSasson-LevyOLomsky-FederE (2018) Gender, emotions management, and power in organizations: The case of Israeli women junior military officers. Sex Roles78(7–8): 573–586.
62.
KarkR (2007) Women in the land of milk, honey, and high technology: The Israeli case. In: BurkeRJMattisMC (eds) Women and Minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics: Upping the Numbers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 101–127.
63.
KarkR (2011) Workplace intimacy in leader-follower relationships. In: CameronKSpreitzerG (eds) Oxford Handbook of Positive Organizational Scholarship, vol. 32. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 423–438.
64.
KarkREaglyAH (2010) Gender and leadership: Negotiating the labyrinth. In: ChrislerJCMcCrearyD (eds) Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology. New York: Springer, 443–468.
65.
KarkRWaismel-ManorR (2005) Organizational citizenship behavior: What’s gender got to do with it?Organization12(6): 889–917.
66.
KarkRWaismel-ManorR (2011) Women in management in Israel. In: DavidsonMJBurkeRJ (eds) Women in Management Worldwide: Progress and Prospects. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing, 279–298.
67.
KarkRKarazi-PreslerTTubiS (2016) Paradox and challenges in military leadership. In: PeusCBraunSSchynsB (eds) Leadership Lessons from Compelling Contexts. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 163–191.
68.
KarkRMeisterAPetersK (2022) Now you see me, now you don’t: A conceptual model of the antecedents and consequences of leader impostorism. Journal of Management48(7): 1948–1979.
69.
KarkRWaismel-ManorRShamirB (2012) Does valuing androgyny and femininity lead to a female advantage? The relationship between gender-role, transformational leadership and identification. The Leadership Quarterly23(3): 620–640.
70.
KimmelM (2001) Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In: WhiteheadSBarrettFJ (eds) Theorizing Masculinities. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 266–287.
71.
KnightsD (2019) Gender still at work: Interrogating identity in discourses and practices of masculinity. Gender, Work & Organization26(1): 18–30.
72.
KnightsDKerfootD (2004) Between representations and subjectivity: Gender binaries and the politics of organizational transformation. Gender, Work & Organization11(4): 430–454.
LindekildeL (2014) Discourse and frame analysis: In-depth analysis of qualitative data in social movement research. In: della PortaD (ed.) Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 195–227.
76.
LorberJ (2005) Breaking the Bowls, Degendering and Feminist Change. New York: WW Norton.
77.
LynessSKHeilmanME (2006) When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology91(4): 777–785.
78.
MackinnonCA (1987) Difference and dominance: On sex discrimination. In: MackinnonCA (ed.) Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 32–45.
79.
MartinP (2003) ‘Said and done’ versus ‘saying and doing’: Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender and Society17(4): 342–366.
80.
MavinS (2006) Venus envy: Problematizing solidarity behaviour and queen bees. Women in Management Review21(4): 264–276.
81.
MavinSGrandyG (2012) Doing gender well and differently in management. Gender in Management: An International Journal27(4): 218–231.
82.
MillerYKarkRZoharN (2019) Her/his ethics? Managerial ethics in moral decision-making from a contextual, gendered, and relational perspective. Sex Roles 80(3–4): 218–233.
OffermannLRCoatsMR (2018) Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades. The Leadership Quarterly29(4): 513–522.
85.
OkinSM (1989) Justice, Gender, and the Family. New York: Basic Books.
86.
PeaseB (2010) Interrogating privileged subjectivities: Tensions and dilemmas in writing reflexive personal accounts of privilege. Paper presented in 8th World Congress: Participatory Action Research and Action Learning, Melbourne, Australia.
87.
PecisL (2016) Doing and undoing gender in innovation: Femininities and masculinities in innovation processes. Human Relations69(11): 2117–2140.
88.
PesonenSTienariJVanhalaS (2009) The boardroom gender paradox. Gender in Management: An International Journal24(5): 327–345.
89.
PhelanJEMoss-RacusinCARudmanLA (2008) Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly32(4): 406–413.
90.
PutnamLLAshcraftKL (2017) Gender and organizational paradox. In: SmithWKLewisMWJarzabkowskiPLangleyA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox. New York: Oxford University Press, 333–352.
91.
RaginsBRSundstromE (1989) Gender and power in organizations: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin105(1): 51–88.
92.
RemennickL (2006) The quest for the perfect baby: Why do Israeli women seek parental genetic testing?Sociology of Health and Illness28(1): 21–53.
93.
RidgewayCLCorrellSJ (2004) Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society18(4): 510–531.
94.
RudmanLAPhelanJE (2008) Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior28: 61–79.
95.
SaidE (1978/2003) Orientalism. New York: Vintage.
96.
ShakediA (2003) Words That Try to Touch, Qualitative Research: Theory and Practice (Heb). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Ramot Publications.
97.
ShoreTH (1992) Subtle gender bias in the assessment of managerial potential. Sex Roles27(9–10): 499–515.
98.
SilvesterJDykesC (2007) Selecting political candidates: A longitudinal study of assessment centre performance and political success in the 2005 UK General Election. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology80(1): 11–25.
99.
SpencerSJLogelCDaviesPG (2016) Stereotype threat. Annual Review of Psychology67(1): 415–437.
100.
SteeleCM (1997) A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist52(6): 613–629.
101.
StraussACorbinJ (1994) Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In: DenzinNKLincolnYS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 273–285.
102.
ThorntonGC (2015) Assessment centers. In: CooperCLGuestDENeedleDJ (eds) Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. New York: Wiley, 5: 1–3.
103.
ThorntonGCIIIByhamWC (2013) Assessment Centers and Managerial Performance. New York: Elsevier.
104.
ThorntonGCIIIGibbonsAM (2009) Validity of assessment centers for personnel selection. Human Resource Management Review19(3): 169–187.
105.
Uhl-BienM (2006) Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly17(6): 654–676.
106.
ValetP (2018) Social structure and the paradox of the contented female worker: How occupational gender segregation biases justice perceptions of wages. Work and Occupations45(2): 168–193.
107.
Van DijkTA (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society4(2): 249–283.
108.
WalshPJWeinbergRMFairfieldML (1987) The effect of gender on assessment center evaluations. Journal of Occupational Psychology60(4): 305–309.
109.
WeickKESutcliffeKMObstfeldD (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science16(4): 409–421.
110.
WeinrebAChernichovskyDBrillA (2018) Israel’s exceptional fertility. In:State of the Nation Report: Society, Economy and Policy 2018. Jerusalem: Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel, 1–42.
111.
WellerSLClarkeCABrownAD (2021) Volunteering masculinities in search and rescue work: Is there ‘a place for girls on the team’?Gender, Work & Organization28(2): 558–574.
112.
WoodallJ (1996) Human resource management and women: The vision of the gender-blind? In: TowersB (ed.) The Handbook of Human Resource Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher, 329–352.
113.
World Economic Forum (2020) Global gender gap report 2020. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Available at: ww3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf (accessed 12 January 2023).
114.
YoderJDAdamsJPrinceHT (1983) The price of a token. Journal of Political and Military Sociology11(2): 325–337.
115.
YoungIM (2003) The logic of masculinist protection: Reflections on the current security state. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society29(1): 1–25.
116.
ZhengWKarkRMeisterA (2018) Paradox versus dilemma mindset: A theory of how women leaders navigate the tensions between agency and communion. The Leadership Quarterly29(5): 584–596.
117.
ZhengWSurgevilOKarkR (2018) Dancing on razor’s edge: How top-level women leaders manage the paradoxical tensions between agency and communion. Sex Roles79(11–12): 633–650.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
