IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmerit/v4y2024i3p19-276d1452458.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenging Assumptions: Gender, Peer Evaluations, and the Broken Rung in Leadership Trajectories

Author

Listed:
  • Saskia L. Shirley

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA 91711, USA)

  • Jennifer Feitosa

    (Department of Psychological Sciences, Claremont McKenna College, Claremont, CA 91711, USA)

Abstract

The concept of the ‘glass ceiling’ represents the significant barriers that women face in climbing the corporate hierarchy, but recently, the focus has shifted to the ‘broken bottom rung’, where women are bypassed for initial leadership roles. This paper investigates the impact of gender on performance evaluations, particularly female-to-female peer ratings, which are critical to career progression. Our study tested three hypotheses about the disparity in female allyship within professional contexts. Participants ( N = 160) from psychology classes in 2018–2019 evaluated their peers in project teams using five ITPMetrics measures. Contrary to previous research suggesting that women receive more critical evaluations than men, this study found no evidence supporting such bias. However, it revealed that women scored higher in process-based skills rather than outcome-based skills, aligning with role congruity theory and the notion of gendered skills. These findings highlight the need for further research into female peer evaluations and their impact on career advancement. This study challenges assumptions about women’s roles in the workplace and advocates for organizations reconsidering the emphasis placed on performance appraisals, proposing alternative assessment methods to foster more equitable and inclusive professional environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Saskia L. Shirley & Jennifer Feitosa, 2024. "Challenging Assumptions: Gender, Peer Evaluations, and the Broken Rung in Leadership Trajectories," Merits, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-14, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmerit:v:4:y:2024:i:3:p:19-276:d:1452458
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8104/4/3/19/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8104/4/3/19/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guoli Chen & Craig Crossland & Sterling Huang, 2016. "Female board representation and corporate acquisition intensity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(2), pages 303-313, February.
    2. Simon Ho & Annie Li & Kinsun Tam & Feida Zhang, 2015. "CEO Gender, Ethical Leadership, and Accounting Conservatism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 351-370, March.
    3. Joyce C. Wang & Lívia Markóczy & Sunny Li Sun & Mike W. Peng, 2019. "She’-E-O Compensation Gap: A Role Congruity View," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 745-760, October.
    4. Shimin Chen & Xu Ni & Jamie Y. Tong, 2016. "Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Risk Management: A Case of R&D Investment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 599-621, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ying Zhang & Yuting Guo & Aiman Nurdazym, 2023. "How do female CEOs affect corporate environmental policies?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 459-472, January.
    2. Joyce C. Wang & Lívia Markóczy & Sunny Li Sun & Mike W. Peng, 2019. "She’-E-O Compensation Gap: A Role Congruity View," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 745-760, October.
    3. Aguir, Iness & Boubakri, Narjess & Marra, Miriam & Zhu, Lu, 2023. "Gender diversity in leadership: Empirical evidence on firm credit risk," Journal of Financial Stability, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. Guanping Zhou, 2019. "Financial distress prevention in China: Does gender of board of directors matter?," Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, SCIENPRESS Ltd, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8.
    5. Jin-hui Luo & Zeyue Huang & Xue Li & Xiaojing Lin, 2018. "Are Women CEOs Valuable in Terms of Bank Loan Costs? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 153(2), pages 337-355, December.
    6. Conor Callahan & Arjun Mitra & Steve Sauerwald, 2024. "Ethics of Care and Employees: The Impact of Female Board Representation and Top Management Leadership on Human Capital Development Policies," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 195(3), pages 615-629, December.
    7. Ioannis Tampakoudis & Andreas Andrikopoulos & Michail Nerantzidis & Nikolaos Kiosses, 2022. "Does boardroom gender diversity affect shareholder wealth? Evidence from bank mergers and acquisitions," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 3315-3344, July.
    8. Huang, Yichu & Fang, Feifei & Fan, Yaoyao & Ly, Kim Cuong, 2024. "Do ‘Lehman Sisters’ work in China? Women on boards and bank risk," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Belaounia, Samia & Tao, Ran & Zhao, Hong, 2020. "Gender equality's impact on female directors’ efficacy: A multi-country study," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(5).
    10. Chen, Ru & Tong, Jamie Yixing & Zhang, Feida (Frank) & Zhou, Gaoguang (Stephen), 2021. "Do female directors enhance R&D performance?," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 253-275.
    11. Sudipta Bose & Sarowar Hossain & Abdus Sobhan & Karen Handley, 2022. "Does female participation in strategic decision‐making roles matter for corporate social responsibility performance?," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(3), pages 4109-4156, September.
    12. Tim Heubeck, 2024. "Walking on the gender tightrope: Unlocking ESG potential through CEOs' dynamic capabilities and strategic board composition," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 2020-2039, March.
    13. Liu, Xiaoxia & Li, Minghui & Tong, Jamie Yixing & Zhang, Feida, 2022. "CFO gender and tax aggressiveness: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    14. Benkraiem, Ramzi & Boubaker, Sabri & Brinette, Souad & Khemiri, Sabrina, 2021. "Board feminization and innovation through corporate venture capital investments: The moderating effects of independence and management skills," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    15. Katia Furlotti & Tatiana Mazza & Veronica Tibiletti & Silvia Triani, 2019. "Women in top positions on boards of directors: Gender policies disclosed in Italian sustainability reporting," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 57-70, January.
    16. Laura Neumeyer & Anna Gründler & Anna-Luisa Stöber, 2023. "Don’t Worry, Be Happy—Does the CEO’s Personality Mitigate the Negative Effect of Financial Constraints on Employee Satisfaction?," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 71-98, March.
    17. María Consuelo Pucheta‐Martínez & Inmaculada Bel‐Oms & Isabel Gallego‐Álvarez, 2023. "Corporate social responsibility reporting and capital structure: Does board gender diversity mind in such association?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(4), pages 1588-1600, July.
    18. Valeria Gattai & Piergiovanna Natale & Francesca Rossi, 2022. "Board Diversity and Outward FDI: Evidence from Europe," Working Papers 491, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2022.
    19. Oliver Lukason & María-del-Mar Camacho-Miñano, 2020. "Corporate Governance Characteristics of Private SMEs’ Annual Report Submission Violations," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, September.
    20. Tarek Abdelfattah & Mohamed Elmahgoub & Ahmed A. Elamer, 2021. "Female Audit Partners and Extended Audit Reporting: UK Evidence," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 177-197, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmerit:v:4:y:2024:i:3:p:19-276:d:1452458. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.