Women remain underrepresented in leadership roles, partly because leader-like behaviors conflict with traditional gender role expectations. This incongruity can enhance social backlash, making it harder for women to internalize the identity of leader. As being seen, and seeing oneself, as a leader is central to pursuing and maintaining leadership roles, it is important to understand how the leader identity development process unfolds differently for men and women. We propose that women face greater social costs for engaging in authority-claiming and differentiate two forms of claiming in terms of potential backlash for women: legitimating (leveraging formal role, policies) and collaborative (offering expertise, resources) claiming. In a daily diary study of 77 leaders (579 daily surveys), women were significantly less likely than men to engage in legitimating claiming, though no gender difference emerged for collaborative claiming. As legitimating claiming more effectively elicited follower granting of authority and daily changes in leader identity strength, men may gain a cumulative identity advantage through greater engagement in both agentic and collaborative behaviors. By distinguishing between types of leader claiming, this study highlights a social exchange mechanism contributing to gender disparities in leader identity development and offers insight into the dynamic nature of leader identity.
AntonakisJ.BendahanS.JacquartP.LaliveR. (2010). On making causal claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120.
2.
AntonakisJ.HouseR. J. (2014). Instrumental leadership: Measurement and extension of transformational–transactional leadership theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.04.005
3.
AshforthB. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
4.
AshforthB. E.SchinoffB. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062322
5.
BanksG. C.McCauleyK. D.GardnerW. L.GulerC. E. (2023a). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(1), 101630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006
6.
BanksG. C.WoznyjH. M.MansfieldC. A. (2023b). Where is “behavior” in organizational behavior? A call for a revolution in leadership research and beyond. The Leadership Quarterly, 34(6), 101581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2021.101581
7.
BealD. J. (2015). ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2, 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111335
8.
BollenK. A.StineR. (1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/271084
9.
BormannK. C. (2017). Linking daily ethical leadership to followers’ daily behaviour: The roles of daily work engagement and previous abusive supervision. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(4), 590–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1331217
10.
BurkeP. J.StetsJ. E. (2009). Identity theory. Oxford University Press.
11.
CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2011). The disaggregation of within-person and between-person effects in longitudinal models of change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 583–619. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100356
12.
DayD. V.HarrisonM. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity-based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.08.007
13.
DeRueD. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007
14.
DeRueD. S.AshfordS. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627
15.
DeRueD. S.AshfordS. J.CottonN. C. (2009). Assuming the mantle: Unpacking the process by which individuals internalize a leader identity. In Exploring positive identities and organizations (pp. 217-236). Psychology Press.
16.
EaglyA. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Erlbaum.
ElyR. J.IbarraH.KolbD. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–493. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0046
19.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
20.
EpitropakiO.KarkR.MainemelisC.LordR. G. (2017). Leadership and followership identity processes: A multilevel review. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.10.003
GuillénL.MayoM.KorotovK. (2015). Is leadership a part of me? A leader identity approach to understanding the motivation to lead. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 802–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.05.001
HeilmanM. E.CaleoS.ManziF. (2024). Women at work: Pathways from gender stereotypes to gender bias and discrimination. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 11(1), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-034105
25.
HeilmanM. E.OkimotoT. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?: The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.81
26.
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(1), 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2017.1402759
27.
HillerN. J. (2005). An examination of leadership beliefs and leadership self-identity: Constructs, correlates, and outcomes. Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.
28.
IbarraH. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667055
29.
JacksonE. M.JohnsonR. E. (2012). When opposites do (and do not) attract: Interplay of leader and follower self-identities and its consequences for leader-member exchange. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.12.003
30.
KarkR.ShamirB. (2013). Addendum: Empirical evidence supporting “the dual effect of transformational leadership. In AvolioB. J.YammarinoF. J. (Eds.), Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead 10th Anniversary Edition (Monographs in Leadership and Management) (Vol. 5, pp. 103–107). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-357120130000005011
31.
KenneyR. A.Schwartz-KenneyB. M.BlascovichJ. (1996). Implicit leadership theories: Defining leaders described as worthy of influence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(11), 1128–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962211004
32.
KulikC. T.OlekalnsM. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide: Lessons from the negotiation table. In StawB. M.BriefA. P. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 91–116). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311431307
33.
KutnerM. H.NachtsheimC.NeterJ.LiW. (2004). Applied linear statistical models (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
34.
LanajK.FoulkT.ErezA. (2019). Energizing leaders via self-reflection: A within-person field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000350
35.
LanajK.GabrielA. S.ChawlaN. (2021). The self-sacrificial nature of leader identity: Understanding the costs and benefits at work and home. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000505
36.
LanajK.GabrielA. S.JenningsR. E. (2023). The importance of leader recovery for leader identity and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 108(10), 1717–1736. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001092
37.
LawsonM. A.MartinA. E.HudaI.MatzS. C. (2022). Hiring women into senior leadership positions is associated with a reduction in gender stereotypes in organizational language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(9), e2026443119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026443119
38.
LeeS.HanS.CheongM.KimS. L.YunS. (2017). How do I get my way? A meta-analytic review of research on influence tactics. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 210–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.001
39.
LiaoC.LeeH. W.JohnsonR. E.LinS.-H. (2021). Serving you depletes me: A leader-centric examination of servant leadership behaviors. Journal of Management, 47(5), 1185–1218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320906883
40.
LordR. G.EpitropakiO.FotiR. J.HansbroughT. K. (2020). Implicit leadership theories, implicit followership theories, and dynamic processing of leadership information. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 49–74. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045434
41.
MaA.RosetteA. S.KovalC. Z. (2022). Reconciling female agentic advantage and disadvantage with the CADDIS measure of agency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(12), 2115–2148. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000550
42.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
43.
McCleanS. T.BarnesC. M.CourtrightS. H.JohnsonR. E. (2019). Resetting the clock on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 479–508. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0081
44.
MiscenkoD.GuenterH.DayD. V. (2017). Am I a leader? Examining leader identity development over time. Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 605–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.004
45.
NieberleK. W.ActonB. P.BraunS.LordR. G.FuY. (2024). Leader identity on the fly: Intra-personal leader identity dynamics in response to strong events. Journal of Business and Psychology, 39(3), 755–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-023-09906-7
46.
O’brienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41, 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
47.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
48.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717–731.
49.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
50.
RuckerD. D.PreacherK. J.TormalaZ. L.PettyR. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371.
51.
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
52.
RudmanL. A.PhelanJ. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003
53.
SchlampS.GerpottF. H.HentschelT.GierkeL. A.Van QuaquebekeN. (2025). The challenge of claiming leadership for younger female managers: Exploring differences between Employees’ behaviors and perceptions. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 33, 15480518251360815. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518251360815
54.
SwannW. B.JohnsonR. E.BossonJ. K. (2009). Identity negotiation at work: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 582–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.005
55.
ThrasherG. R.HammondM. M.Biermeier-HansonB. (2025). (In)congruence in claims and grants and multi-domain leader identity: A response surface modeling test of multi-domain leader identity construction theory. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 32(3), 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518251332976
VolmerJ.NiessenC.SpurkD.LinzA.AbeleA. E. (2012). Reciprocal relationships between leader–member exchange and job satisfaction: A cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(3), 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00446.x
58.
YuklG. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
59.
YuklG.ChavezC.SeifertC. F. (2008). Validation of the extended influence behavior questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 609–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.006
