The Perils of Gender Beliefs for Men Leaders as Change Agents for Gender Equality

• Author: Marieke Brink,Elisabeth Kelan,Anne Laure Humbert
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12325

The Perils of Gender Beliefs for Men Leaders

as Change Agents for Gender Equality

ANNE LAURE HUMBERT,

1

ELISABETH KELAN

2

and MARIEKE VAN DEN BRINK

3

1

Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK

2

Cranfield School of Management, Bedford, UK

3

Radboud UniversityNijmegen, the Netherlands

This article examines the potentially damaging role that gender beliefs can play in hindering women’s equal

representation in leadership positions. Based on a secondary analysis of a large-scale EU-wide survey

(Eurobarometer76.1), the article shows that essentialist genderbeliefs lower support for equalityinterventions such

as quotas or targets,particularly among men as leaders.The results show that discriminatorygender beliefs partially

mediate this relationship and produce a more negative effect among men leaders. The paper contributes to

understanding the role essentialist genderbeliefs often lay the groundwork for gender discriminatory beliefs. Those

in turn hinder support for effectivegender equality measures. Genderessentialist beliefs can be heldby everyone but

are more prevalent amongmen leaders. We conclude that greater gender balance in leadership cannot be achieved

without tackling underlying gender beliefs, particularly among men leaders since they are called upon to enact

change. We therebyargue that simply asking for men to become change agentsfor gender equality is not an effective

strategy if underlying gender beliefs are left unchallenged.

Keywords: gender; leadership; quotas; essentialism; men; targets; beliefs

Introduction

The under-representation of women as leaders on the

boards of publicly quoted companies remains salient in

the EU, where in 2015 an average of 23% of boards

members werewomen across its Member States –ranging

from 5% in Malta to 36% in France (European

Commission,2015). To counter these inequalities,several

European countries introduced mandatory or voluntary

quotas for board positions. In 2003, Norway was the first

country to introdu ce mandatory quota s when women’s

board representation in listed companies increased only

from 4% in 1992 to 6% in 2002 despite voluntary

measures. These mandatory quotas were more effective:

by 2008, 40% of board members were women (Huse

and Brogi, 2013; Macholdet al., 2013). Several countries,

such as Italy and France followed Norway’s example and

introduced mandatory quotas in recent years.

The potential for quotas or targets to redress the

imbalance has been acknowledged (Storvik and Teigen,

2010) but at the same time have proved highly

controversial and divisive (Tienari et al., 2009; Seierstad,

2013; Terjesenet al., 2015). Quotas and targetsneed to be

analysed in a context where the rhetoric of merit and

choice are strongin the business community(Broadbridge

and Simpson, 2011; Vinkenburg, 2017). This creates the

ideal of organizations as meritocracies, a social system

where talent and merit alone dictate who receives

advancements or rewards (Scully, 1997; Castilla and

Benard, 2010) without influence from other factors such

as gender. Resistance to quotas in particular might be

fuelled by the perception that quotas threaten this

meritocratic system (Noon, 2007), as in the case of the

UK where the threat of quotas has motivated voluntary

actions but where quotas remain unpopular (Terjesen

and Sealy, 2016). This ideal of meritocracy implies that

gender inequalities are instead attributed to essentialist

beliefs about the traits and/or preferences of women and

men rather than to a system in which systematic biases

prevent equal opportunities. Essentialist beliefs associate

an underlying ‘essence’to some groups of people, for

example on the basis of sex (Brescoll et al., 2013). This

essential nature can be seen as being at odds with

women’s perceivedsuitability for board positions (Billing

and Alvesson, 2000; Eagly and Karau, 2002) and may

create resistance to quotas.

Correspondence: Anne Laure Humbert, Oxford Brookes University,

Oxford, UK.E-mail alhumbert@gmail.com

DOI: 10.1111/emre.12325

©2018 European Academy of Management

European Management Review, Vol. 16, –, (2019)

1143 1157