Women represent just less than 50% of undergraduate business graduates and 36% of MBA graduates. Despite their strong presence in management education programs, women are noticeably absent from business case studies—a key pedagogical tool for instruction within management education programs worldwide. While case studies inform students about business processes, decision making, strategy, and leadership and management challenges, they also promote unintentional learning about gender. We argue that case studies contain a “hidden curriculum” that presents and reinforces implicit assumptions and stereotypes about women’s fitness to lead. Using NVivo 11 software to analyze the content of written cases, we examine the presence, absence, and representation of female and male protagonists in a sample of business cases published by a large business school case publisher. The findings offer comparative insights into the proportion of cases featuring female protagonists, the representation of women and men in leadership roles, and the characterizations of the female and male protagonists. Women protagonists were absent in more than 80% of cases, and when present, were portrayed as less visionary, risk taking, agentic, certain, and more emotional, cautious, and quality and detail oriented than men.
AndersenE.SchianoB. (2014). Teaching with cases: A practical guide. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
3.
AnneyV. N. (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5, 272-281.
4.
AntebyM. (2013). Manufacturing morals: The values of silence in business school education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5.
AppleM.KingN. (1983). What do schools teach? In GirouxH. A.PurpelD. E. (Eds.), The hidden curriculum and moral education: Deception or discovery? (pp. 81-99). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
6.
ArgyrisC. (1980). Making the undiscussable and its undiscussability discussable. Public Administration Review, 40, 205-213. doi:10.2307/975372
7.
ArgyrisC. (1994). Good communication that blocks learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 77-85.
BakerA. C. (2004). Seizing the moment: Talking about the “undiscussables.”Journal of Management Education, 28, 693-706. doi:10.1177/1052562903252661
10.
BanajiM. R.BhaskarR.BrownsteinM. (2015). When bias is implicit, how might we think about repairing harm?Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 183-188.
11.
BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people (1st ed.). New York, NY: Delacorte Press.
12.
BanajiM. R.HardinC. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136-141.
13.
BartC.McQueenG. (2013). Why women make better directors. International Journal of Business Governance & Ethics, 8, 93-99.
14.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J. (2018). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
BaxterJ. (2010). The language of female leadership. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
16.
BennettJ.CarrollW. R. (2016). Replicating Symons’ study of women’s representations in business school cases: A content analysis of an EMBA program case studies. Presented at the Atlantic Schools of Business, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
BergvallV. L.RemlingerK. A. (1996). Reproduction, resistance and gender in educational discourse: The role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 7, 453-479. doi:10.1177/0957926596007004002
19.
BirdB.BrushC. (2002). A gendered perspective on organizational creation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 26(3), 41-65.
20.
BoothA. L.NolenP. (2012). Gender differences in risk behaviour: Does nurture matter?Economic Journal, 122(558), F56-F78. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2011.02480.x
21.
BourdieuP. (1973). Outline of a theory of practice (NiceR. Trans.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22.
BrescollV. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 622-641. doi:10.1177/0001839212439994
23.
BrescollV. L. (2016). Leading with their hearts? How gender stereotypes of emotion lead to biased evaluations of female leaders. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 415-428. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.005
24.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L. (2008). Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychological Science, 19, 268-275. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02079.x
25.
BridgmanT.CummingsS.McLaughlinC. (2016). Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15, 724-741. doi:10.5465/amle.2015.0291
26.
BridgmanT.McLaughlinC.CummingsS. (2018). Overcoming the problem with solving business problems: Using theory differently to rejuvenate the case method for turbulent times. Journal of Management Education, 42, 441-460. doi:10.1177/1052562917754236
27.
BrownB. (2006). Shame resilience theory: A grounded theory study on women and shame. Families in Society: Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 87, 43-52. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3483
ByrnesJ. P.MillerD. C.SchaferW. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367
32.
CarterN. M.SilvaC. (2007). The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Catalyst. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/double-bind
33.
CazaA.BrowerH. H. (2015). Mentioning the unmentioned: An interactive interview about the informal management curriculum. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 14, 96-110. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0164
34.
ChungK.-S. (2000). Role models and arguments for affirmative action. American Economic Review, 90, 640-648.
35.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
36.
CostaP. T.TerraccianoA.McCraeR. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 322-331. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322
37.
CostelloC. Y. (2004). Changing clothes: Gender inequality and professional socialization. NWSA Journal, 16, 138-155.
38.
DaftR. L.LaneP. G. (2014). The leadership experience (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
41.
EhrensalK. N. (2016). Making managers: Towards an understanding of how textbooks, lectures and management case studies interact to inculcate linguistic and managerial habitus in undergraduate business students. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 14, 65-73.
42.
FischerM.SciariniP. (2015). Unpacking reputational power: Intended and unintended determinants of the assessment of actors’ power. Social Networks, 42, 60-71. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2015.02.008
43.
GabrielS. L. (1990). Gender, reading, and writing: Assignments, expectations, and responses. In GabrielS. L.SmithsonI. (Eds.), Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy (pp. 127-139). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
44.
GarvinD. A. (2007). Teaching executives and teaching MBAs: Reflections on the case method. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6, 364-374. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2007.26361626
45.
GirouxH. A. (2001). Theory and resistance in education: Towards a pedagogy for the opposition. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
46.
Glaser-SeguraD. A.MudgeS.BratianuC.DumitruI. (2010). Development of professional identity in Romanian business students. Education Training, 52, 198-213.
47.
GmürM. (2006). The gendered stereotype of the “good manager” sex role expectations towards male and female managers. Management Revue, 17, 104-121.
GrintK. (2010). Leadership: A very short introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
HentschelT.BraunS.PeusC.FreyD. (2018). The communality-bonus effect for male transformational leaders—Leadership style, gender, and promotability. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27, 112-125. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2017.1402759
54.
HouseR. J.ShamirB. (1993). Toward the integration of transformational, charismatic, and visionary theories. In ChemersM. M.AymanR. (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and directions (pp. 81-107). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
55.
IbarraH. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.
56.
IbarraH.ObodaruO. (2009, January). Women and the vision thing. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 62-70.
57.
JavidanM.BemmelsB.DevineK.DastmalchianA. (1995). Superior and subordinate gender and the acceptance of superiors as role models. Human Relations, 48, 1271-1284. doi:10.1177/001872679504801102
58.
JohnsG.SaksA. M. (2014). Organizational behaviour: Understanding and managing life at work (9th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson.
59.
JunkerN. M.van DickR. (2014). Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1154-1173. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.09.002
60.
KaiserR. B.WallaceW. T. (2016). Gender bias and substantive differences in ratings of leadership behavior: Toward a new narrative. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 68, 72-98. doi:10.1037/cpb0000059
61.
KayK.ShipmanC. (2014). The confidence code: The science and art of self-assurance—What women should know (1st ed.). New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
62.
KelanE. (2013). The becoming of business bodies: Gender, appearance, and leadership development. Management Learning, 44, 45-61.
63.
KlikauerT. (2015). What is managerialism?Critical Sociology, 41, 1103-1119. doi:10.1177/0896920513501351
KouzesJ. M.PosnerB. Z. (2012). The leadership challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
66.
LämsäA.-M.SavelaT. (2014). The effect of an MBA on the development of women’s management competencies: A gender viewpoint. Baltic Journal of Management, 9, 213-230. doi:10.1108/BJM-05-2013-0086
LiangN.WangJ. (2004). Implicit mental models in teaching cases: An empirical study of popular MBA cases in the United States and China. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 397-413. doi:10.5465/AMLE.2004.15112545
69.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
70.
LockwoodP.KundaZ. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 91-103.
71.
MaderaJ. M.HeblM. R.MartinR. C. (2009). Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1591-1599.
72.
ManuelT.ShefteS.SwissD. J. (1999). Suiting themselves: Women’s leadership styles in today’s workplace. Cambridge, MA: Radcliffe Public Policy Institute.
73.
MargolisE.SoldatenkoM.AckerS.GairM. (2001). Peekaboo: Hiding and outing the curriculum. In MargolisE. (Ed.), The hidden curriculum in higher education (pp. 1-20). New York, NY: Routledge.
74.
MargolisJ. A.ZiegertJ. C. (2016). Vertical flow of collectivistic leadership: An examination of the cascade of visionary leadership across levels. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 334-348. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.005
75.
MariniZ.PolihronisC.BlackwellW. (2010). Academic in/civility: Co-constructing the foundation for a civil learning community. Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 3, 89-93. doi:10.22329/celt.v3i0.3245
76.
Mauffette-LeendersL. A.ErskineJ. A.LeendersM. R. (2007). Learning with cases (4th ed.). London, Ontario, Canada: Ivey.
77.
McCabeA. C.IngramR.Dato-onM. C. (2006). The business of ethics and gender. Journal of Business Ethics, 64, 101-116. doi:10.1007/s10551-005-3327-x
78.
McKeenC. A.BurkeR. J. (1991). University initiatives for preparing managerial and professional women for work. Women in Management Review and Abstracts, 6(3), 11-15. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000001798
79.
McLeanW. P.UnterK. A. (2010). Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics. Economics, Management & Financial Markets, 5(4), 127-132.
80.
MesnyA. (2013). Taking stock of the century-long utilization of the case method in management education. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 30, 56-66. doi:10.1002/cjas.1239
81.
MetcalfeB.LinsteadA. (2003). Gendering teamwork: Re-writing the feminine. Gender, Work & Organization, 10, 94-119. doi:10.1111/1468-0432.00005
MorseJ. (2018). Reframing rigor in qualitative inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 796-817). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
85.
NorrisJ. M.WylieA. M. (1995). Gender stereotyping of the managerial role among students in Canada and the United States. Group & Organization Management, 20, 167-182.
86.
OffermannL. R.KennedyJ. K.WirtzP. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43-58. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1
87.
OttewillR.McKenzieG.JeanL. (2005). Integration and the hidden curriculum in business education. Education & Training, 47, 89-97.
88.
ParisL. D.DeckerD. L. (2012). Sex role stereotypes: Does business education make a difference?Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27, 36-50. doi:10.1108/17542411211199264
PearceR. J. (2002). Case-based structured conflict: A means for enhancing classroom learning. Journal of Management Education, 26, 732-744. doi:10.1177/1052562902238327
91.
PetranekC. F.CoreyS.BlackR. (1992). Three levels of learning in simulations: Participating, debriefing, and journal writing. Simulation & Gaming, 23, 174-185. doi:10.1177/1046878192232005
92.
PowellG. N. (2011). The gender and leadership wars. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2010.10.009
93.
ProudfootD.KayA. C.KovalC. Z. (2015). A gender bias in the attribution of creativity. Psychological Science, 26, 1751-1761. doi:10.1177/0956797615598739
94.
ReidA.DahlgrenL. O.PetoczP.Abrandt DahlgrenM. (2008). Identity and engagement for professional formation. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 729-742.
95.
RitchhartR.ChurchM.MorrisonK. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
96.
RobertsA.KarambayyaR. (2017). Women in management in Canada. In BurkeR. J.RichardsenA. M. (Eds.), Women in management worldwide: Signs of progress (3rd ed., pp. 123-139). New York, NY: Routledge.
97.
ScheinE. H.ScheinP. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
98.
ScheinV. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100. doi:10.1037/h0037128
99.
ShieldsS. A.MacArthurH. J.McCormickK. T. (2018). The gendering of emotion and the psychology of women. In TravisC. B.WhiteJ. W.RutherfordA.WilliamsW. S.CookS. L.WycheK. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: History, theory, and battlegrounds (Vol. 1, pp. 189-206). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
100.
SinghV.VinnicombeS.KimJ. (2006). Constructing a professional identity: How young female managers use role models. Women in Management Review, 21, 67-81.
101.
SmithC. (1997). Gender issues in management education: A new teaching resource. Women in Management Review, 12, 100-104. doi:10.1108/09649429710171136
102.
StarkeyK.TempestS. (2008). A clear sense of purpose? The evolving role of the business school. Journal of Management Development, 27, 379-390. doi:10.1108/02621710810866732
103.
SwierczP. M.RossK. (2003). Rational, human, political, and symbolic text in Harvard Business School cases: A study of structure and content. Journal of Management Education, 27, 407-430.
104.
SymonsL. (2016). Writing women into business school case studies. In Florent-TreacyE.KetsM.ViesdeLehmanR.vanE. &Loode (Eds.), Journeys through the organizational labyrinth: A psychodynamic look at leadership identities and transitions (Vol. 1, pp. 73-83). Fontainebleau, France: INSEAD.
TietzW. M. (2007). Women and men in accounting textbooks: Exploring the hidden curriculum. Issues in Accounting Education, 22, 459-480.
108.
ValieanceE. (1983). Hiding the hidden curriculum: An interpretation of the language of justification in nineteenth-century education reform. In GirouxH. A.PurpelD. E. (Eds.), The hidden curriculum and moral education (pp. 9-27). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
109.
van KnippenbergD.StamD. (2014). Visionary leadership. In DayD. V. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations (pp. 241-259). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
110.
VialA. C.NapierJ. L.BrescollV. L. (2016). A bed of thorns: Female leaders and the self-reinforcing cycle of illegitimacy. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 400-414. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.004
111.
WestphalJ.SternI. (2007). Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status affect additional board appointments at U.S. companies. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 267-288. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634434
112.
YeeL.ThomasR.KrivkovichA.FinchA.KucherE.CooperM.. . . KonarE. (2016). Women in the workplace 2016. Palo Alto, CA: McKinsey & Co./Lean In. Retrieved from https://womenintheworkplace.com/
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.
