We use affect control theory (ACT) and its computer simulation program, Interact, to theoretically model the interactional dynamics that women and men business executives are likely to face in the workplace, and we show how these dynamics may contribute to the gender gap in business leadership. Using data from 520 simulated events and two analysis strategies, we use ACT to develop empirically grounded hypotheses regarding these processes. The simulations suggest that women executives face a wider range of situations that require gender deviance than men executives, many of which may be unavoidable (e.g., confronting an unreliable employee). They also suggest that observers will attribute negative characteristics to both women and men executives who engage in a gender-deviant action but that the characteristics attributed to gender-deviant women executives (e.g., ruthless, sadistic) move their identity further from the affective meaning of “an executive” than the characteristics attributed to comparably gender-deviant men executives (e.g., awestruck, gullible), patterns that are likely to make the path to and retention of business leadership positions more difficult for women. We also discuss how our approach could be used to theorize about interactional processes underlying other inequalities, including those based on race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, disability, and age.
Blair-LoyMary. 2001. “It’s Not Just What You Know, It’s Who you Know: Technical Knowledge, Rainmaking, and Gender among Finance Executives.” Research in the Sociology of Work10:51–83.
2.
BosakJanineKulichClaraRudmanLaurieKinahanMary. 2018. “Be an Advocate for Others, Unless You Are a Man: Backlash against Gender-atypical Male Job Candidates.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity19:156–65.
3.
CaleoSuzette. 2016. “Are Organizational Justice Rules Gendered? Reactions to Men’s and Women’s Justice Violations.” Journal of Applied Psychology101:1422–35.
4.
CannonBryan C.KellyChelsea RaeRobinsonDawn T.ZhaoJun. 2018. “Institutions and Cross-cultural Differences in Affective Meanings: An Examination of Simulated Interactions in the US, Egypt, and Morocco.” Unpublished manuscript.
5.
CastillaEmilio J.2008. “Gender, Race, and Meritocracy in Organizational Careers.” American Journal of Sociology113:1479–526.
EaglyAlice H.CarliLinda L.2007. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How Women Become Leaders. Boston: Harvard Business School.
8.
EaglyAlice H.KarauSteven J.2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review109:573–98.
9.
ElliottJames R.SmithRyan A.2004. “Race, Gender, and Workplace Power.” American Sociological Review69:365–86.
10.
FrancisClareHeiseDavid R.2006. “Mean Affective Ratings of 1,500 Concepts by Indiana University Undergraduates in 2002–3 [Computer file].” Distributed at Affect Control Theory Website, Program Interact. Retrieved September27, 2018 (http://www.indiana.edu/~socpsy/ACT/interact.htm).
11.
GormanElizabeth H.2005. “Gender Stereotypes, Same-gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms.” American Sociological Review70:702–28.
12.
GormanElizabeth H.2006. “Work Uncertainty and the Promotion of Professional Women: The Case of Law Firm Partnership.” Social Forces85:865–90.
13.
HeilmanMadeline E.2012. “Gender Stereotypes and Workplace Bias.” Research in Organizational Behavior32:113–35.
14.
HeiseDavid R.1979. Understanding Events: Affect and the Construction of Social Action. London: Cambridge University Press.
HeiseDavid R.MacKinnonNeil J.1987. “Affective Bases of Likelihood Judgments.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology13:133–51.
20.
JackallRobert. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
KalevAlexandraDobbinFrankKellyErin. 2006. “Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies.” American Sociological Review71:589–617.
22.
KundaGideon. 2006. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-tech Corporation. Revised edition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
23.
LangfordTomMacKinnonNeil J.2000. “The Affective Bases for the Gendering of Traits: Comparing the United States and Canada.” Social Psychology Quarterly63:34–48.
24.
MacKinnonNeil J.1994. Symbolic Interactionism as Affect Control. Albany: SUNY Press.
25.
MartinPatricia Yancey. 2001. “‘Mobilizing Masculinities’: Women’s Experiences of Men at Work.” Organization8:587–618.
26.
Moss-RacusinCorinne A.JohnsonElizabeth R.2016. “Backlash against Male Elementary Educators.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology46:379–93.
27.
Moss-RacusinCorinne A.PhelanJulie E.RudmanLaurie A.2010. “When Men Break the Gender Rules: Status Incongruity and Backlash toward Modest Men.” Psychology of Men & Masculinity11:140–51.
28.
NelsonSteven M.2006. “Redefining a Bizarre Situation: Relative Concept Stability in Affect Control Theory.” Social Psychology Quarterly69:215–34.
29.
OsgoodCharles E.MayWilliam H.MironMurray S.1975. Cross-cultural Universals of Affective Meaning. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
30.
O’TooleJamesLawlerEdward E.III. 2006. The New American Workplace. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
31.
ReskinBarbara F.2003. “Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.” American Sociological Review68:1–21.
32.
ReskinBarbara F.McBrierDebra Branch. 2000. “Why Not Ascription? Organizations’ Employment of Male and Female Managers.” American Sociological Review65:210–33.
33.
RidgewayCecilia L.2001. “Gender, Status, and Leadership.” Journal of Social Issues57:637–55.
34.
RidgewayCecilia L.2011. Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press.
35.
RobinsonDawn T.Smith-LovinLynnCannonBryan C.ClarkJesse K.FreelandRobertet al. 2016. “Mean Affective Ratings of 929 Identities, 814 Behaviors, and 660 Modifiers by University of Georgia and Duke Undergraduates and by Community Members in Durham, NC, in 2012–2015.” Distributed at UGA Affect Control Theory Website:http://research.franklin.uga.edu/act/.
36.
RoscignoVincent J.WilsonGeorge. 2014. “The Relational Foundations of Inequality at Work I: Status, Interaction, and Culture.” American Behavioral Scientist58:219–27.
37.
RothLouise Marie. 2006. Selling Women Short: Gender Inequality on Wall Street. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
38.
RudmanLaurie A.1998. “Self-promotion as a Risk Factor for Women: The Costs and Benefits of Counter Stereotypical Impression Management.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74:629–45.
39.
RudmanLaurie A.GlickPeter. 1999. “Feminized Management and Backlash toward Agentic Women: The Hidden Costs to Women of a Kinder, Gentler Image of Middle Managers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77:1004–10.
40.
RudmanLaurie A.KilianskiStephen E.2000. “Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward Female Authority.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26:1315–28.
41.
SchröderTobiasHoeyJesseRogersKimberly B.2016. “Modeling Dynamic Identities and Uncertainty in Social Interactions: Bayesian Affect Control Theory.” American Sociological Review81:828–55.
42.
LynnSmith-LovinHeiseDavid R., eds 1988. Analyzing Social Interaction: Advances in Affect Control Theory. New York: Gordon and Breach.
43.
Smith-LovinLynnRobinsonDawn T.CannonBryan C.CurdyBrentMorganJonathan H.2016. “Mean Affective Ratings of 930 Identities, 814 Behaviors, and 660 Modifiers by Mechanical Turkers in 2015.” Distributed at UGA Affect Control Theory Website: http://research.franklin.uga.edu/act/.
44.
StainbackKevinTomaskovic-DeveyDonaldSkaggsSheryl. 2010. “Organizational Approaches to Inequality: Inertia, Relative Power, and Environments.” Annual Review of Sociology36:225–47.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2018. “Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex and Age, March 2018.” Retrieved September27, 2018 (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm).
47.
WynnAlison T.CorrellShelley J.2018. “Combating Gender Bias in Modern Workplaces.” Pp. 509–21 in Handbook of the Sociology of Gender, edited by RismanB. J.FroyumC.ScarboroughW. J.New York: Springer.
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.
