The history of male dominance in organizational hierarchy can leave a residue of mistrust in which women in particular do not expect fair treatment. The mere presence of a female leader relative to a male leader led perceivers to anticipate fairer treatment in that organization (Study 1) and greater projected salary and status (Study 2). This mere presence effect occurred uniquely through communal and not agentic affordances; these patterns emerged especially or only for women. Female leaders cued organizational trust in both male- and female-dominated industries (Study 3) and when they occupied different levels of the organizational hierarchy (Study 4). When information about organizational communal affordances is directly communicated, both female and male leaders signal trust (Study 5). The processes and practices of male-dominated organizational culture can leave a residue of mistrust, but viewing women in leadership is one beacon illuminating paths forward and upward.
AllenJ. M.MuragishiG. A.SmithJ. L.ThomanD. B.BrownE. R. (2015). To grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural and structural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000046
2.
BelangerA. L.JoshiM. P.FuestingM. A.WeisgramE. S.ClaypoolH. M.DiekmanA. B. (2020). Putting belonging in context: Communal affordances signal belonging in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(8), 1186–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897181
3.
BladerS.TylerT. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013935
4.
BrashearT. G.ManolisC.BrooksC. M. (2005). The effects of control, trust, and justice on salesperson turnover. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(03)00134-6
5.
BrocknerJ.SiegalP. (1996). Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: The role of trust. In KramerR.TylerT. (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 390–413), SAGE. http://doi.org/10.4135/9781452243610.n18
6.
BrownE. R.DiekmanA. B.SchneiderM. C. (2011). A change will do us good: Threats diminish typical preferences for male leaders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(7), 930–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211403322
7.
CanningE. A.MurphyM. C.EmersonK. T. U.ChatmanJ. A.DweckC. S.KrayL. J. (2020). Cultures of genius at work: Organizational mindsets predict cultural norms, trust, and commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(4), 626–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219872473
8.
CarlessS. A. (1998). Gender differences in transformational leadership: An examination of superior, leader, and subordinate perspectives. Sex Roles, 39(11), 887–902. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018880706172
9.
ClarkE. K.FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B. (2016). Enhancing interest in science: Exemplars as cues to communal affordances of science. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(11), 641–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12392
10.
CrockerJ.McGrawK. (1984). What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander: Solo status as an obstacle to occupational achievement for males and females. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276484027003007
11.
De CremerD.TylerT. (2007). The effect of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 639–649. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.639
12.
DerksB.Van LaarC.EllemersN. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007
DiekmanA. B.ClarkE. K.JohnstonA. M.BrownE. R.SteinbergM. (2011). Malleability in communal goals and beliefs influences attraction to STEM careers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 902–918.
15.
DiekmanA. B.JoshiM. P.Benson-GreenwaldT. M. (2020). Goal congruity theory: Navigating the social structure to fulfill goals. In GawronskiB. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 189–244). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2020.04.003
16.
DiekmanA. B.SchmaderT. (in press). Gender as embedded social cognition. In Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed.).
17.
DiekmanA. B.SteinbergM.BrownE. R.BelangerA. L.ClarkE. K. (2017). A goal congruity model of role entry, engagement, and exit: Understanding communal goal processes in STEM gender gaps. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(2), 142–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141
18.
EaglyA. H.CarliL. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. Harvard Business Press.
19.
EaglyA. H.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 781–797.
20.
EaglyA. H.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C.van EngenM. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
21.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
22.
EaglyA. H.WoodW. (2011). Social role theory. In Van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories in social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 458–476). SAGE.
23.
EmersonK. T. U.MurphyM. C. (2015). A company I can trust? Organizational lay theories moderate stereotype threat for women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214564969
24.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
25.
FiskeS. T.NeubergS. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation, from attention and interpretation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–74). Academic Press.
FrenkelS.OrlitzkyM. (2005). Organizational trustworthiness and workplace labor productivity: Testing a new theory. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(1), 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1038411105050306
28.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B. (2017). Not by success alone: Role models provide pathways to communal opportunities in STEM. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216678857
29.
FuestingM. A.DiekmanA. B.HudiburghL. (2017). From classroom to career: The unique role of communal processes in predicting interest in STEM careers. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 875–896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9398-6
30.
FukuyamaF. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity (1st ed.). The Free Press.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(10), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
33.
GrantA. M. (2013). Give and take: A revolutionary approach to success. Viking Press.
34.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
35.
JohnsonI. R.PietriE. S.FulliloveF.MowrerS. (2019). Exploring identity-safety cues and allyship among black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 43(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684319830926
36.
KaiserC. R.MajorB.JurcevicI.DoverT. L.BradyL. M.ShapiroJ. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(3), 504–519.
37.
KellyJ. T.BrownE. R.DiekmanA. B.SchneiderM. C. (2018). The change we believe in: The role of socioeconomic conditions in evaluations of black political candidates. Electoral Studies, 54, 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2018.04.008
38.
KroeperK. M.WilliamsH. E.MurphyM. C. (2020). Counterfeit diversity: How strategically misrepresenting gender diversity dampens organizations’ perceived sincerity and elevates women’s identity threat concerns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000348
39.
KruglanskiA. W.BélangerJ. J.ChenX.KöpetzC.PierroA.MannettiL. (2011). The energetics of motivated cognition: A force-field analysis. Psychological Review, 119(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025488
40.
LeeG.TeoA. (2005). Organizational restructuring: Impact on trust and work satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-005-6416-6
41.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
42.
McCartyM. K.MonteithM. J.KaiserC. R. (2014). Communally constrained decisions in workplace contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.07.007
43.
MontoyaA. K.HayesA. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000086
44.
MorgenrothT.RyanM. K. (2020). The effects of gender trouble: An integrative theoretical framework of the perpetuation and disruption of the gender/sex binary. Perspectives on Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620902442
45.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
Purdie-VaughnsV.SteeleC. M.DaviesP. G.DitlmannR.CrosbyJ. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615
48.
Riegle-CrumbC.PengM.Russo-TaitT. (2020). Committed to STEM? Examining factors that predict occupational commitment among Asian and White female students completing STEM U.S. postsecondary programs. Sex Roles, 82, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01038-8
49.
Shockley-ZalabakP.EllisK.WinogradG. (2000). Organizational trust: What it means, why it matters. Organization Development Journal, 18(4), 35–48.
50.
SteeleC. M.SpencerS. J.AronsonJ. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 379–440). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80009-0
51.
SteinbergM.DiekmanA. B. (2018). Considering “why” to engage in STEM activities elevates communal content of STEM affordances. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.10.010
SterkN.MeeussenL.Van LaarC. (2018). Perpetuating inequality: Junior women do not see queen bee behavior as negative but are nonetheless negatively affected by it. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1690. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01690
54.
SturmS. (2006). The Architecture of inclusion: Advancing workplace equity in higher education. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 29, Article 247.
55.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2019). Labor force statistics from the current population survey. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
56.
van der BergY.MartinsN. (2013). The relationship between organisational trust and quality of work life. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), Article 392. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v11i1.392
57.
VidottoG.VicentiniM.ArgenteroP.BromileyP. (2008). Assessment of organizational trust: Italian adaptation and factorial validity of the organizational trust inventory. Social Indicators Research, 88(3), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-007-9219-y
58.
VinkenburgC. J.van EngenM. L.EaglyA. H.Johannesen-SchmidtM. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion?The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.12.003
59.
WalkerM.SchönbornS.GreifenederR.VetterT. (2018). The Basel Face Database: A validated set of photographs reflecting systematic differences in Big Two and Big Five personality dimensions. PLOS ONE, 13(3), Article e0193190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193190
60.
YeagerD. S.HendersonM. D.PauneskuD.WaltonG. M.D’MelloS.SpitzerB. J.DuckworthA. L. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037637
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.
