This commentary builds on Wolf and Stock-Homburg’s (2025) study on employee acceptance of robotic managers by introducing a gendered and intersectional lens to the analysis of robot readiness. It argues that acceptance of robotic leadership is influenced not only by technological performance but also by social identity dynamics. In particular, drawing on stereotype threat, status threat, and affective forecasting, the commentary highlights how gendered expectations influence responses to robot overperformance, further extending the discussion through an intersectional framework to illustrate how complex bias patterns in response to robot embodiment are activated. It outlines practical implications for organisations, calling for diversity-responsive design to ensure that robotic systems support, rather than undermine, inclusion in the workplace.
AbelM.KuzS.PatelH. J.PetruckH.SchlickC. M.PellicanoA.BinkofskiF. C. (2020). Gender effects in observation of robotic and humanoid actions. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 797. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00797
2.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
3.
BartneckC.YogeeswaranK.SerQ. M.WoodwardG.SparrowR.WangS.EysselF. (2018). Robots and racism. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (pp. 196–204). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1145/3171221.3171260
4.
BianL.LeslieS.-J.CimpianA. (2017). Gender stereotypes about intellectual ability emerge early and influence children’s interests. Science, 355(6323), 389–391. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
5.
CaiZ.FanX.DuJ. (2017). Gender and attitudes toward technology use: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
8.
DasguptaN.GreenwaldA. G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: Combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 800–814. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.800
9.
DennlerN.KianM.NikolaidisS.MatarićM. (2025). Designing robot identity: The role of voice, clothing, and task on robot gender perception. International Journal of Social Robotics, 17(4), 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-025-01209-6
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
12.
Forgas-CollS.Huertas-GarciaR.AndriellaA.AlenyàG. (2022). The effects of gender and personality of robot assistants on customers’ acceptance of their service. Service Business, 16(2), 359–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-022-00492-x
13.
GündemirS.DovidioJ.HomanA.De DreuC. (2017). The impact of organizational diversity policies on minority employees leadership self-perceptions and goals. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816662615
14.
HaslamS. A.ReicherS. D.PlatowM. J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351108232
15.
HuQ.WangY.WangY. (2022). The effect of service robot occupational gender stereotypes on customers’ acceptance of anthropomorphized robots. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 985501. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985501
16.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
17.
RosetteA.Zhou KovalC.MaA.LivingstonR. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.01.008
18.
RudmanL. A.Moss-RacusinC. A.PhelanJ. E.NautsS. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008
19.
ScheepersD.EllemersN. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.002
20.
SteeleC. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613
21.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G. (2000). Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 115–139. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250981
WolfF. D.Stock-HomburgR. M. (2025). One size does not fit all: Mechanisms of employees’ acceptance of robotic lower-level managers. Group & Organization Management, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011251313568
