Little
has changed in 60 years about the gender gap in leadership aspirations.
A
review of data from leadership studies conducted over six decades found that
women in the United States are still less likely than men to show a desire to
take on leadership or managerial jobs.
Even
if the overall disparity has a tiny but persistent influence, fewer women rise
at each level, even when systematic discrimination is not taken into account.
This is especially true for upper leadership levels. The results of the
researchers' simulation showed that there were more than two male leaders at
the highest levels for every female leader, reflecting the gender difference in
leadership aspirations.
According
to Leah Sheppard, an associate professor at Washington State University and
co-lead author of the study that was published in the Journal of Vocational
Behavior, "this suggests that even if we were to drastically reduce bias
and systematic gender discrimination, we still wouldn't expect to see equal
representation of women in leadership roles." "We need to have a
discussion about leadership goals if we want to reach a more equitable 50/50
split. We must consider what women require in order to identify with these
roles."
The
findings do not negate the existence of structural prejudice, according to
Sheppard and co-lead author Ekaterina Netchaeva, an assistant professor at
Bocconi University in Italy. Furthermore, they do not imply that women lack
ambition, as a previous study has demonstrated that women do desire promotions,
such as those that involve moving from junior to senior-level positions, but
not usually those that entail greater supervisory responsibilities.
In
order to conduct this analysis, the researchers obtained 174 study samples,
totaling more than 138,000 study participants, from the 1960s through 2020. All
of the research evaluated leadership aspirations across a variety of academic
disciplines, including management, law, psychology, and economics. The
researchers approached the authors of many of the original studies for extra
statistics to compare the goals of men and women even though they were not
particularly designed to measure gender differences.
According
to the current survey, the leadership aspiration gap expanded among people
working in male-dominated fields like politics and business, with even fewer
women wishing to run for government.
The
analysis was unable to determine the precise causes of women's lower motivation
to hold leadership positions in business or politics, but experts believe a
number of variables, including internalised sexism, are likely at play.
According
to Netchaeva, "self-stereotyping" is the process through which people
internalise their own gender preconceptions and actively comply with gender
standards. "For women, this entails internalising a more community
paradigm, which causes them to regard themselves as less similar to a leader
and, as a result, to aspire to leadership roles to a lesser extent," the
author writes.
On
the other hand, men, Netchaeva continued, can believe they fit the masculine
agentic stereotype in that they have more control over both themselves and
others, which also fits the common perception of leaders as being in charge.
Other
factors cited by previous studies include the fact that women experience the
workplace more negatively than males do, including discrimination, which can
reduce their hopes for the future. Women might worry about the toll
high-ranking positions would have on their personal and family lives.
The
gender disparity in ambitions is likely wider than what has been assessed by
the research, according to some indicators of publication bias that the authors
discovered. The fact that the research question is disputed suggests that this
bias exists since it may be more challenging to publish studies that
demonstrate a difference favouring men.
The
aspiration difference started to show up rather early, especially around
college age, according to the study. More investigation is required to
comprehend not only when precisely this disparity appears but also why many
women might not wish to hold leadership positions.
In
the meanwhile, employers can be proactive, according to the study, and focus
interventions on raising the ambitions of their female employees while
continuing to lessen systemic bias. Establishing family-friendly rules, pairing
women with mentors, and encouraging them to assume less formal leadership
roles, such as those associated with team projects, are a few examples of these
initiatives.
If
those who have mixed feelings about leadership are given the opportunity to
fully engage in the role, they may discover that they are suited for it and
even enjoy it, according to Sheppard.