Upward mobility for women managers: styles and perceptions: part two
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this two‐part article is to discover why gender plays a significant role in attaining leadership positions. More specifically this article provides a thorough review of the different gender leadership styles, next it outlines the findings regarding whether one gender is more effective than the other on certain dimensions. The article presents the findings of how certain leadership perceptions have evolved. Finally the article will review the challenges faced by women in business contexts. Design/methodology/approach The authors reviewed a wide array of published works on “gender and leadership” to gain insight on this broad topic. Next, the authors narrowed down their review to focus on four specific aspects of the said topic: gender leadership styles, gender effectiveness on certain dimensions, leadership perceptions and challenges women face. Findings The literature on the reviewed four aspects suggests that the most effective leadership style is transformational leadership – the style of leadership that is most often associated with women. It was also found that certain behavioral traits found in female managers are considered to be more effective when dealing with employees, such as empathy, supportiveness, and relationship building. However, there are other traits such as vision where male managers tend to rank better than female managers. Research limitations/implications The use of a literature review may be perceived as limiting but the scope and breadth of contemporary data and empirical finding utilized in this article has more than compensated for this issue. Practical implications The number of working women has and continues to increase, yet the number of women in senior positions of organizations remains nearly unchanged as women are still perceived as inferior leaders when compared to men. Social implications Women are perceived as being less capable than men in leadership roles, thus hindering their aspirations to climb the corporate ladder. What is more, women also find themselves struggling with issues such as the glass ceiling and glass cliff effect as well as balancing both motherhood and career obligations, limiting their workplace advancements. Originality/value A useful source to provide arguments as to how and why women demonstrate excellent managerial skill sets. Also, the ill‐conceived communication silos regarding the perceived notion that women are deemed inferior leaders when compared to their male counterparts are challenged.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".