Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Workplace sexual harassment remains an insidious yet pervasive component of organizational life. Building on research that has established that leaders play an important role in condoning or revoking sexual harassment, we theorize that a CEO's appearance—specifically, the extent to which their face is prototypically masculine—can influence employee assumptions about the patriarchal nature of organizational hierarchy, which, in turn, influences their perceptions of the degree to which sexual harassment will be tolerated. We test these ideas in three complementary studies. Study 1 observes that employees in large organizations headed by a CEO with a more masculine face report more instances of sexual harassment in online reviews. Study 2 uses an experiment to show that CEO facial masculinity drives followers’ perceptions that sexual harassment is tolerated in an organization by increasing the presumption that the organization is patriarchal. Study 3 affirms these results with a sample of new employees both before and after their first day on the job. Together, these studies provide evidence that a presumption of patriarchy increases the perceived tolerance for sexual harassment, which yields more observations of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Keywords

sexual harassment presumed patriarchy CEO masculinity symbolic leadership facial trait perception scale development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acker

1989. The problem with patriarchy. Sociology, 23: 235-240.

Aguinis

Vandenberg

R. J.

2014. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure: Improving research quality before data collection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1: 569-595. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091231.

Bandura

1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84: 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191.

Bandura

1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory (Vol. 1986). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baumhart

R. C.

1961. How ethical are businessmen? Harvard Business Review, 39: 6-16.

Beechey

1979. On patriarchy. Feminist Review, 3: 66-82. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.1979.21.

Bell

M. P.

McLaughlin

M. E.

Sequeira

J. M.

2002. Discrimination, harassment, and the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents. Journal of Business Ethics, 37: 65-76. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014730102063.

Bem

S. L.

1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42: 155. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.

Bem

S. L.

1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88: 354-364. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.88.4.354.

10.

Berdahl

J. L.

2007. Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32: 641-658. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351879.

11.

Berdahl

J. L.

Cooper

Glick

Livingston

R. W.

Williams

J. C.

2018. Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74: 422-448. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289.

12.

Berdahl

J. L.

Raver

J. L.

2011. Sexual harassment. In Zedek

(Ed.) APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: 641-669. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13.

Bermiss

Y. S.

McDonald

2018. Ideological misfit? Political affiliation and employee departure in the private-equity industry. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 2182-2209. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.0817.

14.

Brenner

S. N.

Molander

E. A.

1977. Is the ethics of business changing. Harvard Business Review, 55: 57-71.

15.

Brewer

M. B.

Dull

Lui

1981. Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41: 656-670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.656.

16.

Buswell

Jenkins

1994. Equal opportunities policies, employment and patriarchy. Gender, Work & Organization, 1: 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.1994.tb00008.x.

17.

Cameron

A. C.

Trivedi

P. K.

2013. Regression analysis of count data (2nd ed., Vol. 53). New York: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Cantor

Mischel

1977. Traits as prototypes: Effects on recognition memory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35: 38-48. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.1.38.

19.

Castilla

E. J.

Benard

2010. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 543-676. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543.

20.

Chatman

J. A.

Flynn

F. J.

2005. Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior research. Organization Science, 16: 434-447. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0136.

21.

Chawla

Gabriel

A. S.

O’Leary Kelly

Rosen

C. C.

2021. From #MeToo to #TimesUp: Identifying next steps in sexual harassment research in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 47: 551-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320980518.

22.

Cohen

1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

23.

Collins

E. G.

Blodgett

T. B.

1981. Sexual harassment … some see it … some won't. Harvard Business Review, 59: 76-95.

24.

Corritore

Goldberg

Srivastava

S. B.

2020. Duality in diversity: How intrapersonal and interpersonal cultural heterogeneity relate to firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65: 359-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219844175.

25.

Cortina

L. M.

Areguin

M. A.

2021. Putting people down and pushing them out: Sexual harassment in the workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8: 285-309. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-055606.

26.

Dobbin

Kalev

2019. The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116: 12255. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1818477116.

27.

Donnelly

Twenge

J. M.

2017. Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem sex-role inventory, 1993–2012: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 76: 556-565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0625-y.

28.

EEOC. 2020. Charges alleging sex-based harassment (Charges filed with EEOC) FY 2010 – FY 2020. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/statistics/charges-alleging-sex-based-harassment-charges-filed-eeoc-fy-2010-fy-2020

29.

Erdfelder

Faul

Buchner

1996. GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203630.

30.

Feldblum

C. R.

Lipnic

V. A.

2016. Report of the select taskforce on the study of harassment in the workplace. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace

31.

Fiebrich

C. G.

2019. From# MeToo to #OnlyYou: Epic systems, collective arbitration, and sexual harassment in the workplace. HLRE: Off Rec, 10: 26.

32.

Fiske

S. T.

Taylor

S. E.

1984. Social cognition. London: Addison-Wesley.

33.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

1993. Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48: 1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.48.10.1070.

34.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Gelfand

M. J.

Drasgow

1995. Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17: 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2.

35.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Drasgow

Hulin

C. L.

Gelfand

M. J.

Magley

V. J.

1997a. Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 578-589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578.

36.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Swan

Magley

V. J.

1997b. But was it really harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In O’Donohue

(Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment: 5-28. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

37.

Giacomin

Mulligan

Rule

N. O.

2021. Dictators differ from democratically elected leaders in facial warmth. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1948550621991368. Available online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550621991368

38.

Giorgi

Lockwood

Glynn

M. A.

2015. The many faces of culture: Making sense of 30 years of research on culture in organization studies. The Academy of Management Annals, 9: 1-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1007645.

39.

Glass

Cook

Pierce

2020. Do women in leadership reduce sexual harassment claims on college campuses? Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 13: 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/26379112.2020.1782227.

40.

Glick

Berdahl

J. L.

Alonso

N. M.

2018. Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. Journal of Social Issues, 74: 449-476. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12280.

41.

Gomulya

Wong

E. M.

Ormiston

M. E.

Boeker

2017. The role of facial appearance on CEO selection after firm misconduct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102: 617-635. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000172.

42.

Goss

K. A.

2020. The paradox of gender equality: How American women's groups gained and lost their public voice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

43.

Graham

J. R.

Harvey

C. R.

Puri

2017. A corporate beauty contest. Management Science, 63: 3044-3056. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2484.

44.

Gupta

Misangyi

V. F.

2018. Follow the leader (or not): The influence of peer CEOs’ characteristics on interorganizational imitation. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 1437-1472. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2765.

45.

Gutek

B. A.

1985. Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

46.

Hambrick

D. C.

Lovelace

J. B.

2018. The role of executive symbolism in advancing new strategic themes in organizations: A social influence perspective. Academy of Management Review, 43: 110-131. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2015.0190.

47.

Harned

M. S.

Ormerod

A. J.

Palmieri

P. A.

Collinsworth

L. L.

Reed

2002. Sexual assault and other types of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A comparison of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupaional Health Psychology, 7: 174-188. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.7.2.174.

48.

Hartmann

1976. The historical roots of occupational segregation: Capitalism, patriarchy, and job segregation by sex. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1: 137-169. https://doi.org/10.1086/493283.

49.

Haveman

H. A.

Sanders

Rathje

2021. Obstacles to gender equity in the tech sector: Organizational culture and workplace practices. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley.

50.

Hayes

A. F.

2018. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

51.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature, 466: 29-29. https://doi.org/10.1038/466029a.

52.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Parker

S. K.

Reich

T. C.

2010. The moderating effect of equal opportunity support and confidence in grievance procedures on sexual harassment from different perpetrators. Journal of Business Ethics, 92: 415-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0165-2.

53.

Hershcovis

M. S.

Vranjes

Berdahl

J. L.

Cortina

L. M.

2021. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: Theorizing network silence around sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology. Available online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000861

54.

Hess

Adams

Kleck

2005. Who may frown and who should smile? Dominance, affiliation, and the display of happiness and anger. Cognition and Emotion, 19: 515-536. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000364.

55.

Hulin

C. L.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Drasgow

1996. Organizational influences on sexual harassment. In Stockdale

M. S.

(Ed.) Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies: 127-150. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

56.

Hunnicutt

2009. Varieties of patriarchy and violence against women: Resurrecting “patriarchy” as a theoretical tool. Violence Against Women, 15: 553-573. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208331246.

57.

Ilies

Hauserman

Schwochau

Stibal

2003. Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56: 607-631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x.

58.

Johnson

S. K.

Murphy

S. E.

Zewdie

Reichard

R. J.

2008. The strong, sensitive type: Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106: 39-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.002.

59.

Kanze

Huang

Conley

M. A.

Higgins

E. T.

2018. We ask men to win and women not to lose: Closing the gender gap in startup funding. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 586-614. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016.1215.

60.

Konrad

A. M.

Gutek

B. A.

1986. Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 422-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392831.

61.

Kreiner

G. E.

Hollensbe

Sheep

M. L.

Smith

B. R.

Kataria

2015. Elasticity and the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together while we are pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58: 981-1011. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0462.

62.

Kunisch

Bartunek

J. M.

Mueller

Huy

Q. N.

2017. Time in strategic change research. Academy of Management Annals, 11: 1005-1064. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0133.

63.

Lord

R. G.

Maher

K. J.

1991. Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance. Cambridge, MA: Unwin Hyman, Inc.

64.

Lukaszewski

A. W.

Simmons

Z. L.

Anderson

Roney

J. R.

2016. The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110: 385-406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000042.

65.

Mayer

D. M.

Kuenzi

Greenbaum

Bardes

Salvador

2009. How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002.

66.

Maypole

D. E.

Skaine

1982. Sexual harassment of blue collar workers. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 9: 682.

67.

McClean

S. T.

Barnes

C. M.

Courtright

S. H.

Johnson

R. E.

2019. Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 13: 479-508. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0081.

68.

McLaughlin

Uggen

Blackstone

2012. Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77: 625-647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412451728.

69.

Mount

M. P.

Baer

2022. CEOs’ regulatory focus and risk-taking when firms perform below and above the bar. Journal of Management, 48: 1980-2008. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211016029.

70.

Muthén

B. O.

Muthén

L. K.

Asparouhov

2016. Regression and mediation analysis using Mplus. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

71.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

1998-2017. Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

72.

O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

Bowes-Sperry

Bates

C. A.

Lean

E. R.

2009. Sexual harassment at work: A decade (Plus) of progress. Journal of Management, 35: 503-536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308330555.

73.

Pennebaker

J. W.

Boyd

R. L.

Jordan

Blackburn

2015. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.

74.

Penton-Voak

I. S.

Jones

B. C.

Little

Baker

Tiddeman

Burt

Perrett

D. I.

2001. Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 268: 1617-1623. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1703.

75.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.

76.

Potwora

J. C.

(2017). Creation and validation of the organizational tolerance of gender norm enforcement inventory [Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation]. Washington State University.

77.

Pound

Penton-Voak

I. S.

Surridge

A. K.

2009. Testosterone responses to competition in men are related to facial masculinity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276: 153-159. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0990.

78.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40: 879-891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879.

79.

Pryor

J. B.

LaVite

C. M.

Stoller

L. M.

1993. A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42: 68-83. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005.

80.

Quinn

B. A.

2002. Sexual harassment and masculinity: The power and meaning of “girl watching.” Gender & Society, 16: 386-402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243202016003007.

81.

Raver

J. L.

Gelfand

M. J.

2005. Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 387-400. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407904.

82.

Reuter

Wahrendorf

Di Tecco

Probst

T. M.

Chirumbolo

Ritz-Timme

Barbaranelli

Iavicoli

Dragon

2020. Precarious employment and self-reported experiences of unwanted sexual attention and sexual harassment at work. An analysis of the European Working Conditions Survey. Plos One, 15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233683

83.

Rubino

Avery

D. R.

McKay

P. F.

Moore

B. L.

Wilson

D. C.

Van Driel

M. S.

Witt

L. A.

McDonald

D. P.

2018. And justice for all: How organizational justice climate deters sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 71: 519-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12274.

84.

Rule

N. O.

Ambady

2008. The face of success: Inferences from chief executive Officers’ appearance predict company profits. Psychological Science, 19: 109-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02054.x.

85.

Rule

N. O.

Ambady

Adams

R. B.

Jr. Ozono

Nakashima

Yoshikawa

Watabe

2010. Polling the face: Prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017673

86.

Sanchez

D. T.

Kiefer

A. K.

Ybarra

2006. Sexual submissiveness in women: Costs for sexual autonomy and arousal. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 512-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282154.

87.

Spisak

B. R.

Homan

A. C.

Grabo

Van Vugt

2012. Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial contingency model of leadership in intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces. The Leadership Quarterly, 23: 273-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.006.

88.

Strom

Collins

C. J.

Avgar

A. C.

Ryan

in press. Drawing the line: How the workplace shapes the naming of sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12496

89.

Swider

B. W.

Harris

T. B.

Gong

2022. First impression effects in organizational psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107: 346-369. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000921.

90.

Tenbrunsel

A. E.

Rees

M. R.

Diekmann

K. A.

2019. Sexual harassment in academia: Ethical climates and bounded ethicality. Annual Review of Psychology, 70: 245-270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102945.

91.

Terjesen

Patel

P. C.

2017. In search of process innovations: The role of search depth, search breadth, and the industry environment. Journal of Management, 43: 1421-1446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315575710.

92.

Todorov

Mandisodza

A. N.

Goren

Hall

C. C.

2005. Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science (New York, N.Y.), 308: 1623-1626. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1110589.

93.

Triana

M. D. C.

Jayasinghe

Pieper

J. R.

Delgado

D. M.

2018. Perceived workplace gender discrimination and employee consequences: A meta-analysis and complementary studies considering country context. Journal of Management, 45: 2419-2447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318776772.

94.

Uggen

Blackstone

2004. Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69: 64-92. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900105.

95.

Walby

2013. Patriarchy at work: Patriarchal and capitalist relations in employment, 1800-1984. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

96.

Wang

Nair

Kouchaki

Zajac

E. J.

Zhao

2019. A case of evolutionary mismatch? Why facial width-to-height ratio may not predict behavioral tendencies. Psychological Science, 30: 1074-1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619849928.

97.

Wang

Y. A.

Sparks

Gonzales

J. E.

Hess

Y. D.

Ledgerwood

2017. Using independent covariates in experimental designs: Quantifying the trade-off between power boost and type I error inflation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72: 118-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.011.

98.

Way

S. A.

2002. High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the us small business sector. Journal of Management, 28: 765-785. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800604.

99.

Weick

K. E.

1995. Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

100.

Weick

K. E.

Sutcliffe

K. M.

Obstfeld

2005. Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16: 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133.

101.

Welsh

1999. Gender and sexual harassment. Annual Review of Sociology, 25: 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.169.

102.

White

M. J.

White

G. B.

2006. Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 55: 259-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9078-z.

103.

Willness

C. R.

Steel

Lee

2007. A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60: 127-162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x.

104.

Wood

Bandura

1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14: 361-384. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4279067.

105.

Wooldridge

J. M.

2003. Cluster-Sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review, 93: 133-138. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321946930.

106.

Yuan

K.-H.

Bentler

P. M.

2000. Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30: 165-200.

107.

Zebrowitz

L. A.

Montepare

J. M.

2005. Appearance DOES matter. Science (New York, N.Y.), 308: 1565-1566. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1114170.

108.

Zhao

E. Y.

Wry

2016. Not all inequality is equal: Deconstructing the societal logic of patriarchy to understand microfinance lending to women. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1994-2020. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0476.

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.

0.00 MB

1.27 MB

Presumed Patriarchy: How a CEO's Masculine Appearance Affects Perceptions of Sexual Harassment in Organizations

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material