1

David R. Hekman, Ph.D
Assistant Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship
Leeds School of Business
University of Colorado
david.hekman@colorado.edu

Wei Yang
Ph.D. Student
McCombs School of Business
University of Texas at Austin


Maw Der Foo
Associate Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship
Leeds School of Business
University of Colorado


2

AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER AND HOW DIVERSITY-VALUING BEHAVIOR
RESULTS IN WORSE PERFORMANCE RATINGS FOR MINORITY AND FEMALE
LEADERS THAN WHITE AND MALE LEADERS

ABSTRACT

We seek to solve the puzzle of why the glass ceiling persists despite the presence of
ethnic minorities and women in organizational leadership positions. We suggest that the glass
ceiling persists partly because ethnic minority and women leaders are discouraged from engaging
in diversity-valuing behaviors. Specifically, we hypothesize and test in both field and laboratory
samples that ethnic minority or female leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior are
penalized with worse performance ratings than their equally-diversity-valuing white or male
counterparts. We generally find that this divergent effect partly results from traditional negative
racial and gender stereotypes (i.e. lower competence and warmth judgments, respectively) placed
upon diversity-valuing ethnic minority and women leaders. We discuss how our findings extend
and enrich the vast literatures on the glass ceiling, tokenism and workplace discrimination and
imply that researchers might benefit by shifting from a focus on diversity-valuing behavior
(which only appears to be viewed negatively when performed by ethnic minorities and women)
to demographic-unselfishness behavior (which is likely more universally admirable).





3

“I don’t think that I would consider myself a feminist.” – First female CEO of Yahoo, Marissa
Mayer

“People get bent out of shape about the fact that when I was a kid, you could not drink out of
certain water fountains. Well, the water was the same.” – African-American U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Clarence Thomas

For decades management researchers have been interested in understanding the degree to
which ethnic minorities and women face a ―glass ceiling‖ in the highest corporate echelons
(Finkelstein, Hambrick, and Cannella, 2009). Indeed, most research attention has focused on
documenting that the glass ceiling exists, and little has been done to understand why it exists and
how it might be dismantled. As Park and Westphal (2013: 543) conclude ―little attention has
been devoted to identifying possible sources of social discrimination against minorities who have
managed to acquire high-status positions.‖ However, some researchers are beginning to try to
solve this puzzle and have argued that the glass ceiling is held in place, in part, because bosses
hold stereotypical views of ethnic minority and women leaders (Desai, Chugh & Brief, 2014;
Hoobler, Wayne & Lemmon, 2009; Joshi, 2014; Westphal & Stern, 2007), and therefore hold
such leaders to higher performance standards (Kulich, Trojanowski, Ryan, Haslam, &
Renneboog, 2011).
The purpose of our research is to build on these findings and to provide deeper insight
into the puzzle of why nearly all large U.S. organizations are controlled by white men (Hoobler
et al., 2009; Hymowitz & Schellhardt, 1986; Lyness & Heilman, 2006; Ridgeway, 2011).
Especially now that nonwhites and women outnumber white men in the U.S. workplace by a
margin of 2 to 1 (Burns, Barton & Kerby, 2012), it is surprising that white men continue to hold
4

85 percent of the CEO and corporate board positions in Fortune 500 companies (Catalyst, 2012;
Hillman, Shropshire & Cannella, 2007). Moreover, white men have been found to receive lower
performance ratings than their nonwhite or female workplace counterparts in some contexts
(Rosette & Tost, 2010; Zenger & Folkman, 2012). Taken together, this body of evidence
suggests that despite nonwhites and women outnumbering and sometimes outperforming their
white male counterparts, only rarely are they given the reigns of the most powerful organizations
in society. Economists are perhaps most disturbed by this phenomenon because orthodox
economic theory would predict that it is suboptimal for society to select its top leaders from only
34 percent of the population (i.e. the white men; Economist, 2008).
1

Organizational diversity programs are thought to empower ethnic minority and female
leaders to individually place tiny cracks in the glass ceiling by championing the cause of
organizational diversity wherever such leaders are located (Ely 1994; Ibarra 1995; Ragins &
Scandura 1999). However, there is a growing body of work indicating that ethnic minority and
women leaders might avoid hiring and promoting fellow ethnic minorities and women because
such leaders feel threatened by fellow members of their own demographic groups (Duguid, 2011;
Duguid, Loyd, & Tolbert, 2012). We take this idea one step further and suggest that engaging in
workplace diversity-valuing behavior is not universally beneficial, and that ethnic minority and
women leaders may actually be penalized in the form of lower performance ratings from
diversity-valuing behavior whereas white men may not. In fact, we go as far as to argue that this
divergent effect of diversity-valuing behavior on performance ratings results from supervisors‘

1
Indeed, the glass ceiling is a major reason why nonwhites and women are considered minorities, even though
together they comprise a numerical majority. The term ―minority‖ does not refer to a smaller number of people
compared to the dominant group, but rather refers to a group that holds few positions of social power (Schaefer,
1996). Affirmative action programs and corporate diversity offices have been put in place with the purported goal of
helping minorities break through this glass ceiling and achieving greater organizational power and influence
(Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie & Lev-Arey, 2006; Levi & Fried, 2008). However, despite the increasing
emphasis on promoting diversity, ethnic minorities and women are still under-represented at the highest
organizational levels and over-represented at the lower organizational levels (Leslie, Mayer & Kravitz, 2013).
5

tendency to negatively stereotype diversity-valuing ethnic minority leaders as incompetent, and
their tendency to negatively stereotype diversity-valuing female leaders as interpersonally cold.
Moreover, we contend that ethnic minority and women leaders tend to avoid being negatively
stereotyped and tend to be viewed as strong performers to the extent they engage in low levels of
diversity-valuing behavior. We suggest that when nonwhite or women leaders engage in
diversity-valuing behaviors, they violate the expectation that as minorities, they will play a
supporting, rather than a leading, role in society (Sheppard & Aquino, 2013).
Our theoretical rationale challenges the conventional wisdom that ethnic minority and
women leaders will be motivated to shatter the glass ceiling (Ely 1994; Ibarra 1995; Ragins &
Scandura, 1999), and helps begin to solve the puzzle of why the glass ceiling persists despite its
societal costs. Specifically, the glass ceiling may persist in part because nonwhite and women
leaders who engage in diversity-increasing behaviors in the highest organizational ranks are
systematically penalized with lower performance ratings for doing so. Our findings suggest that
nonwhite and women leaders may increase their own chances of advancing up the corporate
ladder by actually engaging in a very low level of diversity-valuing behavior. This idea is
consistent with the anecdotal evidence portrayed in our introductory quotes, where a powerful
woman distances herself from her gender, and a powerful African-American distances himself
from his ethnicity. By downplaying their race and gender, these leaders may be viewed as more
warm and competent, and thus be viewed as worthy of being promoted into the highest
organizational echelons. Our results also help explain why there are so few leaders willing to
publicly advocate for nonwhite or women leaders to be promoted (Ibarra, Carter & Silva, 2010),
and why ethnic minorities and women might feel threatened at the prospect of hiring a fellow
member of their demographic group (Duguid, 2011; Hansen, Ibarra & Peyer, 2010).
6

Our theoretical rationale also contributes to the literature on tokenism which has
struggled to explain why minorities and women may impede the advancement of their fellow
women (―queen bee syndrome,‖ Staines, Tavris, & Jayaratne, 1973: 55) and nonwhite (―crab
mentality,‖ Mendoza, 2002, p. 57) coworkers. Indeed the tokenism literature suggests that token
nonwhites and women are placed in positions of power by powerful white or male executives
with the express purpose of keeping other nonwhites and women out of the upper echelons of
organizations (Kanter, 1977). Not only does the idea that white men are collectively conspiring
against their competent nonwhite or women coworkers defy common sense, but also no
empirical link between tokenism and nonwhite or female career outcomes, such as performance
ratings has been observed (Derks, Ellemers, van Laar, & de Groot, 2011; Sheppard & Aquino,
2013). However, our findings explain that rather than being a conscious decision to promote
white men instead of nonwhites or women, tokenism could emerge from minority and female
leaders' awareness that engaging in diversity-valuing behavior is personally costly, and avoiding
such behavior is personally beneficial.
Our approach of building and extending organizational theory in order to understand and
solve organizational problems aligns with AMJ‘s strategic vision of ―bringing organizational
problems to the forefront,‖ which helps make organizational research ―more relevant to
managers, and more interesting for our readers‖ (George, 2014: 2). Our findings also highlight
the potential importance of researchers like ourselves in shifting from a focus on studying
diversity to a focus on studying demographic unselfishness. As our results suggest, diversity-
valuing minorities and women leaders justifiably may be viewed as promoting race- and gender-
based selfishness because "valuing diversity" typically refers to greater inclusion of demographic
minorities and women (Richard, 2000, p.164). Just as it might be unfair to ask white men how
7

much they value homogeneity, our findings suggest that it may also be unfair to ask minorities
and women how much they value diversity. An approach that might be fairer to members of all
demographic groups would be to simply study the degree to which people value hiring and
promoting individuals who are demographically dissimilar from themselves. By leading the
charge in this respect, perhaps we researchers can have a better chance of rectifying the
demographic imbalances that characterize today's organizations.
Our research also has several methodological strengths that help bolster confidence in our
findings. Our moderated mediation model (Muller, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2005) linking the
interaction of leader diversity-valuing behavior and demographics to performance ratings
through the mechanism of stereotypical leader attribute ratings was confirmed using both the
Sobel test (MacKinnon, Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995) as well as with Preacher and colleague's
bootstrapping methodology (Preacher, Rucker & Hayes, 2007). Moreover, our full theoretical
model was partially confirmed in a large field sample of 362 high-level executives (CEOs, other
C-level leaders, vice presidents, directors, and board-level professionals), and fully confirmed in
a laboratory setting using trained actors where we were able to manipulate our predictor
variables (diversity-valuing behavior and leader demographics). This approach is consistent with
the idea of full-cycle research (Chatman & Flynn, 2005), wherein a naturally occurring
phenomenon is observed in the field, and then brought into a carefully controlled laboratory
setting to verify the causal process and intervening mechanisms. A final strength is that our field
study data were derived from multiple respondents (peer and supervisor ratings) which helps
minimize concerns regarding common-method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff,
2003).
Diversity-valuing behavior, leader demographics and performance ratings
8

Glass ceiling background
Although at a macro-level there is a great deal of evidence that a glass ceiling exists for
ethnic minority and women leaders (i.e. minorities and women are under-represented at the
highest organizational levels; Hitt & Barr, 1989; Hillman, Cannella & Harris, 2002; Zweigenhaft
& Domhoff, 2006; Hillman, Shropshire & Cannella, 2007), at a micro level, there is little
evidence of a main effect of race or gender on leader performance evaluations (Eagly, Makhijani
& Klonsky, 1992; Joshi & Roh, 2009; Ng, Eby, Sorensen & Feldman 2005; Rosette, Leonardelli
& Phillips 2008). In fact, the most recent meta-analytic findings regarding leader gender show
that women tend to receive slightly better average performance ratings than their male
counterparts (Roth, Purvis, & Bobko, 2012). Certainly, ethnic minorities and women have made
some progress in recent years in attaining leadership positions as the percentage of Fortune 500
ethnic minority or women CEOs has doubled from 4 to 8 percent over the last decade (Cook &
Glass, 2013; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 2011) and 79 percent of working men report having
worked for a female boss at some point in their careers (Elsesser & Lever, 2011). Indeed, recent
evidence suggests that ethnic minority and women leaders tend to be viewed as belonging to the
"in-group" of white male top executives to the extent they are similar to the white male
incumbents in other ways (i.e. similar age, leadership experience, or functional background;
Urban and Miller, 1998; Gaertner and Dovidio, 2000; Zhu, Shen & Hillman, 2014:1), or
ingratiate themselves to these incumbents (Westphal & Stern, 2006; Westphal & Stern, 2007).
Building on these ideas, we suggest that only when minority or women leaders behave in a way
that highlights their atypical race or gender attributes will these demographic differences
negatively influence such leaders' performance evaluations.
9

When evaluating others, people tend to gather information that helps them determine
whether an individual is a potential threat or an opportunity (Wojciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski,
1998). Because threatening information (i.e. a perceived dissimilarity) is generally viewed to be
more important than information indicating that a person presents an opportunity (i.e. a
perceived similarity; Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer & Vohs, 2001), perceived
dissimilarities loom larger than perceived similarities (Bodenhausen, Kang, & Peery, 2012;
Fiske, Cuddy & Glick, 2007). Race and gender have been found to be the two of the most
important demographic markers leaders use to determine the degree to which fellow leaders are
different from themselves (i.e. more important than age, education, functional background, or
leadership experience; Zhu et al., 2014). Individuals tend to believe that their race- and gender-
based demographic groups are engaged in a zero-sum competition with other demographic
groups, such that if other demographic groups gain status, their own demographic groups lose
status (Sidanius, Pratto, & Mitchell, 1994). In the United States at least, most people consider
white men to be members of a high-status social group and ethnic minorities and women to
belong to low-status social groups (see Ridgeway [1991] for a review).
Warmth and competence stereotypes
In general, members of high-status demographic groups tend to be viewed as more
interpersonally warm and competent than members of low-status demographic groups (Aquino
& Bommer, 2003; Giannopoulos, Conway, & Mendelson, 2005; Fiske et al., 2007). Individuals
who are judged as warm or competent are evaluated much more favorably than those who are not
(Wojciszke et al., 1998). Indeed, warmth and competence are at the heart of demographic
stereotypes, and together they account for 82% of the variance in perceptions of everyday social
behaviors (Abele, Cuddy, Judd, & Yzerbyt, 2008; Fiske et al., 2008). Women tend to be held to
10

higher standards of warmth than men, and ethnic minorities tend to be held to higher standards of
competence than whites (Cuddy, Fiske & Glick, 2007). Warmth perceptions involve judgments
of others' morality and sociability, and competence perceptions involve judgments of others'
efficiency and capability (Abele et al., 2008; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Leach, Ellemers, &
Barreto, 2007).
To the extent ethnic minority or women leaders behave in a way that emphasizes their
low-status race or gender characteristics, their perceived low-status demographics (and higher
warmth and competence standards) become instantly salient, triggering these leaders to be
viewed as social outsiders (Gaertner, Dovidio, Rust, Nier, Banker, Ward, Mottola & Houlette,
1999; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Park & Westphal, 2013). Indeed, when minority or women
leaders engage in behaviors that are unusual or atypical, they highlight their demographic
dissimilarity from the white male incumbents and tend to be undervalued and discounted by their
workplace peers (Eagly and Karau, 1991; Eagly et al., 1992), especially in contexts where such
demographic minorities also represent a numerical minority (e.g. a high-level leadership context;
Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999; Carli, 2010). The particular behavior we focus on is diversity-
valuing behavior, which we argue leads observers to pay attention to the race and gender of the
leader engaging in that behavior, and thus enables race and gender biases to affect how those
leaders are perceived and evaluated. As noted above, "valuing diversity" is generally viewed to
be a euphemism for hiring and promoting demographic minorities and women (Richard, 2000:
164). Minority and women leaders' engagement in diversity-valuing behavior may be viewed as
selfishly advancing the social standing of their own low-status demographic groups.
Women leaders, warmth, and diversity-valuing behavior
11

Starting with our rationale regarding gender, we suggest that female leaders who engage
in diversity-valuing behavior will tend to be viewed as less warm and receive lower performance
ratings than their equally-diversity-valuing male leader counterparts. Women are explicitly and
implicitly expected by society and even themselves to be interpersonally warmer than men
(Rudman, Greenwald & McGhee, 2001). Traditionally women are expected to serve and support
men (Wurtzell, 1998), and to the extent they are viewed as desiring to selfishly increase their
own social standing by engaging in diversity-valuing behavior we expect that they will be
viewed by their bosses as cold and scheming to subvert the existing social order. When leaders
display selfishness, they lose status and are viewed as less leader-like (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006;
Melwani, Mueller, & Overbeck, 2012). Indeed as an article from the popular press notes, a range
of powerful women leaders have been derogated by the media as being interpersonally cold:
"England's Margaret Thatcher, was called "Attila the Hen." Golda Meir, Israel's first female
prime minister, was "the only man in the Cabinet." Richard Nixon called Indira Gandhi, India's
first female prime minister, "the old witch." And Angela Merkel, the current chancellor of
Germany, has been dubbed "The Iron Frau.""(Vedantam, 2007). Certainly, women leaders who
threaten the status quo tend to be viewed negatively by observers (Rudman, Moss-Racusin,
Phelan & Nauts, 2012). We suggest that the cold woman stereotype will be placed upon
diversity-valuing female leaders, delegitimizing their authority and preventing such women from
gaining power in organizations, thereby perpetuating the glass ceiling.
Simply put, women leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior will be viewed as
selfishly promoting women, which will lead their bosses to stereotype them as cold, and this
judgment will result in lower performance ratings. We may even find evidence of factors
perpetuating tokenism in the form of the queen bee syndrome (Chattopadhyay, Tluchowska, and
12

George, 2004; Derks, Van Laar, Ellemers, & de Groot, 2011; Staines et al., 1973), such that
women leaders who perform low levels of diversity-valuing behavior are rewarded with higher
warmth and performance ratings and thereby increased chances of advancing up the corporate
ladder.
Hypothesis 1. Leader sex will moderate the influence of leader diversity-valuing behavior
on performance ratings, and this moderating effect will be mediated by perceived
warmth. That is, women leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior will be rated
as less warm than their equally-diversity-valuing male leader counterparts, and these
lower warmth ratings will be associated with lower performance ratings.

Nonwhite leaders, competence, and diversity-valuing behavior
Our argument linking leader diversity-valuing behavior and race to performance ratings
parallels our argument for leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex. Specifically, we suggest
that nonwhite leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior will tend to be viewed as
selfishly advancing nonwhites, leading to negative stereotypical judgments of such leaders'
competence and ultimately lower performance ratings. In contrast, we expect white leaders who
engage in diversity-valuing behavior to avoid being viewed negatively because their diversity-
valuing behavior is unlikely to be viewed as selfishly promoting their own demographic group.
Demographic group status largely determines stereotypical judgments of group competence
(Cuddy et al., 2008). In general, nonwhites tend to be stereotyped as incompetent and thus
society tends to demand that racial minorities prove a higher level of competence, work harder
and attain more education in order to be judged as equally competent to their white counterparts
(Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Ng, Eby, Sorensen & Feldman, 2005; Yarkin, Town, &
13

Wallston, 1982). Indeed, 65% of people have been found to stereotype nonwhites as
"unintelligent" and 75% have been found to stereotype nonwhites as ―lazy‖ (Devine, 1989, p. 8).
Thus we suggest that the incompetent nonwhite stereotype is a subtle social mechanism that
applies to diversity-valuing nonwhite leaders, delegitimizing their authority, and thereby
strengthening the glass ceiling. To be clear, we are not arguing that there will be a main effect of
leader race on competence and performance ratings, but rather that leader race will influence
competence and performance ratings to the extent leaders make their race salient by engaging in
diversity-valuing behavior.
Simply put, nonwhite leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior will be viewed as
selfishly promoting nonwhites, which will lead their bosses to stereotype them as incompetent,
and this judgment will result in lower performance ratings than their equally-diversity-valuing
white leader counterparts. We may even find evidence of factors facilitating racial tokenism (i.e.
Mendoza, 2002), such that nonwhite leaders who engage in an extremely low level of diversity-
valuing behavior are rewarded with higher competence and performance ratings and thereby
increased chances of advancing up the corporate ladder.
Hypothesis 2. Leader race will moderate the influence of leader diversity-valuing
behavior on performance ratings, and this moderating effect will be mediated by
perceived competence. That is, nonwhite leaders who engage in diversity-valuing
behavior will be rated as less competent than their equally-diversity-valuing white leader
counterparts, and these lower competence ratings will be associated with lower
performance ratings.
Method

14

We conducted two studies to test our hypotheses. Following the full-cycle research
approach (Chatman & Flynn, 2005), we first tested our conceptual model in the field, and then
sought to replicate our findings in a highly controlled laboratory context.
Study 1
Sample
Our sample consisted of an entire calendar year cohort of 362 executives working in the
United States who went through an executive development program. These executives were
rated by their bosses and peers via a confidential online survey in which these peers and bosses
reported their ratings of the executive‘s diversity-valuing behavior, warmth, competence and
performance two weeks prior to the start of the executive development program (100% response
rate). As far as demographics are concerned, 13.8% of the executives were nonwhite and 30.7%
were female. As for organizational rank, 88.7% were executives (vice presidents, directors, and
board level professionals), and 11.3% were one rank above executives (i.e. ―top managers‖ such
as CEOs or other C-level leaders). The majority of ratees (89%) had a bachelor‘s degree or
graduate degree. Each ratee was rated by a single boss, and an average of 3.61 peers (median =
3). Peers and bosses were demographically similar to executive ratees, as 31% of the peers were
women and 16% were nonwhite. Thirteen percent of the executive‘s bosses were women and
8.8% were nonwhite.
Measures
Leader performance. We used an adaptation of Sadri, Weber and Gentry‘s (2011) three-
item measure of leader performance by using bosses ratings on a five-point Likert scale (1 =
among the worst, 5 = among the best): (1) How would you rate this person's performance in
his/her present job?, (2) How effectively would this person handle being promoted in the same
15

function or division (moving a level up)?, and (3) Where would you place this person as an
executive relative to other executives inside and outside your organization? Coefficient alpha for
this measure was .88.
Leader sex. We coded male leaders as 0 and females as 1. One-hundred eleven leaders
were female (30.7%), which is consistent with the national average of female leaders nationwide
(Lyness & Judiesch, 2008). Only eight leaders (2.2%) were both nonwhite and female.
Leader race. Each leader reported their own race and each boss reported the race of the
leader they were rating. There were no disagreements between boss and leader reports of leader
race and we coded whites as 0 and nonwhites as 1. Of the 362 leaders in the sample, 312 were
Caucasians (86.2%) and 50 were nonwhite (13.8%). The percentage of nonwhite leaders is fairly
consistent with the national average of nonwhite leaders nationwide (Lyness & Judiesch, 2008).
Leader diversity-valuing behavior. We used an adaptation of Kossek & Zonia‘s (1993)
measure to capture the degree to which peers perceived the leader as engaging in racial and
gender diversity-valuing behaviors. Other-reports of behavior are thought to be more accurate
than self-reports (Morgeson, Campion, Dipboye, Hollenbeck, Murphy, & Schmitt, 2007), which
is why many researchers have argued for the use of observer reports (Connelly & Ones, 2010;
Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Zimmerman, del Carmen Triana, & Barrick, 2010), and which is
why we used peer-reports in our analyses. On average, each leader was rated by 3.61 peers
regarding the peers‘ perceptions of the leaders‘ diversity-valuing behaviors, and we averaged the
peer ratings to create the mentoring score for each leader. The following three items were rated
on a five-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very great extent): (1) Understands and
respects cultural, religious, gender and racial differences, (2) Values working with a diverse
group of people, and (3) Is comfortable managing people from different racial or cultural
16

backgrounds. Coefficient alpha for the average peer ratings of each leader of this measure was
.87. The peer-ratings of each leader‘s diversity-valuing behavior had an acceptable level of
agreement as indicated by a significant F statistic for ANOVA (F = 2.11, df = 361, p < .01) and
r
wg
and ICC(1,2) statistics above acceptable cutoffs (r
wg
= .92; ICC(1) = .27; ICC(2) = .52), and
thus were aggregated. Aggregating data is appropriate when the F statistic for ANOVA is
significant, r
wg
is higher than .70 (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984), and ICC(1) is non-zero
(Bliese, 2000). Certainly, ICC(2) values should be higher than .70 (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000),
but a low ICC(2) value simply indicates lower power in detecting relationships involving Level
2 variables (and thus a more conservative test of the hypotheses), and thus does not prevent
aggregation (Bliese, 2000).
Leader warmth. We used an adaptation of Cuddy, Fiske and Glick‘s (2007) warmth
scale to capture the degree to which leaders were perceived as being interpersonally warm by
their bosses. The core of perceived warmth is perceived morality (Leach et al., 2007), and in fact
this construct was initially labeled ―morality‖ (Wojciszke et al., 1998: 1251) but the label
evolved to ―morality (warmth)‖ (Fiske et al., 2007: 77) and currently is often referred to as
simply ―warmth‖ (Cuddy, Glick & Beninger, 2011: 73). Although researchers may disagree on
the label for this construct, they broadly agree on its content as including the primary sub-
dimension of morality and the secondary sub-dimension of sociability (Abele & Wojciszke,
2007; Abele, Cuddy, Judd & Yzerbyt, 2008; Brambilla, Rusconi, Sacchi & Cherubini, 2011).
This measure was rated by leaders‘ bosses in order to reduce social desirability bias (Nederhof,
1985), and to further enhance the measure‘s validity (Zimmerman et al., 2010). Bosses rated the
frequency that they believed the leader exhibited the following four characteristics on a six-point
Likert scale (1 = never, 6 = always): (1) Deceptive - Conceals the truth for selfish reasons
17

(reverse-coded) (2) Credible - Worthy of trust, believable (3) Ethical - Lives within society‘s
standards of right and wrong (4) Scheming - Develops sly and devious plans (reverse-coded).
Coefficient alpha was .83.
Leader competence. We used an adaptation of Cuddy, Fiske and Glick‘s (2007)
competence scale to capture the degree to which leaders were perceived as being competent by
their supervisors. Bosses rated the frequency that they believed the leader exhibited the following
three characteristics on a six-point Likert scale (1 = never, 6 = always): (1) Ambitious - Highly
motivated; determined to make progress, (2) Productive - Gets a lot done, (3) Driven - Has a
burning, over-whelming passion to succeed. Coefficient alpha for our measure was .72.
Controls. Following Spector and Brannick‘s (2011) advice to avoid over-controlling
variance, we only included those control variables that we expected to affect our hypothesized
relationships. Industry. Because different industries have different norms regarding the
appropriate ranges of job performance ratings (Brutus, Fleenor & London, 1998), we created 26
industry dummy variables representing each of the 26 industries in our sample (e.g. Aerospace,
Automotive, Banking, Chemicals, Computer Hardware, Computer Software, Food and beverage,
Government, Manufacturing, Non-profit, Pharmaceuticals, Retail, and Utilities). Job function.
Because different job functions have different norms regarding the appropriate ranges of job
performance ratings (Goodhue & Thompson, 1995), we created 20 job function dummy variables
representing each of the 20 job functions in our sample. Leaders were distributed fairly equally
across these functions: Accounting, Administration, Advertising/Public Relations,
Credit/Finance, Education, Engineering, Human Resources/Training, Information Systems/Data
Processing, Law, Manufacturing, Marketing, Materials Management/Purchasing, Medicine,
Operations, Other, Product Development, Research and Development, Research/Analysis, Sales,
18

and Top Management. Pay. Higher paid leaders likely have more influence in the organization,
thereby decreasing the likelihood of negative stereotypes and increasing their performance
ratings. The bosses were asked to report how much the leaders were paid annually. On average
the leaders were paid $173,824 per year. Organization Size. Diversity initiatives are likely more
common in large organizations, arguably making diversity valuing less notable in these types of
workplaces. Bosses were asked to report the approximate number of employees working for the
organization. The leaders managed fairly large organizations, as the organizations in our sample
employed an average of 4,717 workers. Leader education level. Because more educated leaders
may be more savvy about avoiding being stereotyped negatively, the leaders were asked to report
their highest educational degree (1 = high school; 2 = associates; 3 = bachelor‘s; 4 = Master‘s; 5
= Doctorate/Professional). The majority of leader ratees (89%) had a bachelor‘s degree or
graduate degree, with the mean education being 3.36). Leader organizational level. Because it
becomes more difficult to differentiate between leader quality at higher levels (Avolio,
Walumbwa & Weber, 2009), the leaders and their bosses were asked to determine each leader‘s
organization level according to six choices (1 = hourly employee, machine operators,
clerical/secretarial and support staff, technicians; 2 = first level forepersons, crew chiefs, section
supervisors; 3 = middle, office managers, professional staff, mid-level administrators; 4 = upper
middle, department leaders, plant managers, senior professional staff; 5 = executives, vice
presidents, directors, board-level professionals; and 6 = Top managers, chief executives, or
operating officers, presidents). All individuals in our sample were classified by themselves and
their bosses as being in the top two categories. The average leader organization level was 5.11.
Boss familiarity with leader. Because bosses who are more familiar with their followers tend to
rate these individuals as better performers (Kingstrom & Mainstone, 1985), we controlled for
19

boss familiarity with the leader ratee using a single-item measure evaluated with a four-point
Likert scale. This item was, ―How well do you know the ratee?‖ (1 = I hardly know this person;
2 = I do not know this person well; 3 = I know this person moderately well; 4 = I know this
person extremely well). On average bosses rated themselves as knowing the leaders in their
charge as quite well (M = 3.51). Boss organizational level. To account for the tendency for top
managers to be more lenient in their ratings (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009), we controlled
for each boss‘s organizational level. The bosses classified themselves according to the same
scale as the leaders. The mean boss organizational ranking was 5.27, somewhat higher than the
leaders they rated. In addition, because individuals tend to have a demographic similarity bias
(Turban & Jones, 1988), we also controlled for the interaction of boss race X leader race as well
as the interaction of boss sex X leader sex. We measured and coded bosses race (0 = white, 1 =
nonwhite). We measured and coded boss sex (0 = male, 1 = female). There were 314 male
bosses (86.7 percent) and 48 female bosses (13.3 %). As with the leaders, only 8 of the leaders‘
bosses (2.2%) were both nonwhite and female.
Results

Table 1 reports the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between the
criterion, predictor, and control variables. We also ran two ANOVAs testing whether there is a
race and gender difference in reported diversity-valuing behavior and found that women are
significantly more likely to be reported by their peers as engaging in diversity-valuing behavior
than men (mean difference is .17, F = 9.81, df =1, p < .01), and nonwhites are significantly more
likely to be reported by their peers as engaging in diversity-valuing behavior than whites (mean
difference is .36, F = 24.26, df =1, p < .001). Hierarchical moderated regression models were
used to examine the hypothesized interaction effects. Following Aiken and West (1991), all
20

variables involved in the interaction terms were mean-centered. Table 2 presents the results of
the analysis for the influence of leader demographics and diversity-valuing behavior on the
mediators, and Table 3 presents the results of the analysis for the influence of the main effects
and proposed mediators on leader performance.
------------------------------------------------
Insert Tables 1 through 3 About Here
------------------------------------------------

Figure 1 shows that we hypothesized two models of moderated mediation, which means
that we predicted that the joint influence of a main effect (diversity-valuing behavior) and a
moderator (leader race/sex) on a criterion variable will operate through a mediator (leader
warmth/competence; Muller et al., 2005). Thus, in Models 1 and 4 of Table 2, all the control
variables and main effects for predicting the mediators are included. In Models 2 and 5 (Table 2),
all the control variables, main effects and the hypothesized interactions of our mediators are
included.
In Model 1 of Table 3, all the control variables for predicting our criterion variable are
included. In Model 2 (Table 3) all the control variables and main effects for predicting our
criterion variable are included. In Model 3 (Table 3), all the control variables, main effects and
the interaction of leader sex X diversity-valuing behavior are included for predicting our
criterion variable. In Model 4 (Table 3), all the control variables, main effects, the interaction of
leader sex X diversity-valuing behavior and the proposed mediator of leader warmth are included
for predicting our criterion variable. In Model 5 (Table 3) all the control variables, main effects
and the interaction of leader race X diversity-valuing behavior are included for predicting our
criterion variable. In Model 6 (Table 3), all the control variables, main effects, the interaction of
leader race X diversity-valuing behavior and the proposed mediator of leader competence are
21

included for predicting our criterion variable. In Model 7 (Table 3), all the control variables,
main effects and both interactions are included for predicting our criterion variable. In Model 8
(Table 3), all the control variables, main effects, both interactions and both proposed mediators
are included to demonstrate that our mediation effects hold even when both mediators are
included in the model.
In hypothesis 1 we argued that the gap in performance ratings between male and female
leaders resulting from diversity-valuing behavior would be mediated by perceived warmth. That
is, women leaders who valued diversity would be rated by their bosses as less warm than their
male leader counterparts who valued diversity and this lower warmth rating would be associated
with a lower performance rating. As shown in Table 2, the coefficient for the interaction term
involving leader sex and diversity-valuing behavior was significant for leader warmth (β = -.12,
p < .05). The Aiken and West (1991) methodology demonstrated leader diversity-valuing
behavior was only negatively associated with boss ratings of leader warmth for women, β = -.22,
p < .05, not men, β = .28, p < .05. (See Figure 2). Likewise, Table 3 shows that the coefficient
for the interaction term involving leader sex and diversity-valuing behavior was significant for
leader performance (β = -.16, p < .01). Looking at the plots in Figure 3, diversity-valuing
behavior was only negatively associated with boss ratings of leader performance for women, β =
-.33, p < .01, not men, β = .25, p < .01. Moreover, when leader warmth was entered into the
model predicting leader performance rating, the strength and significance of the coefficient for
the interaction of leader sex and diversity-valuing behavior decreased, which suggests that leader
warmth partially mediated the joint influence of leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex on
leader performance ratings.
22

To further test for mediation, we ran Sobel (MacKinnon et al., 1995) and bootstrap
(Lockwood, Hoffman, West & Sheets, 2002) analyses and both revealed evidence of mediation.
Specifically the Sobel mediation test statistic was significant (t = 2.17, p < .05), indicating leader
warmth mediated between the interaction of leader sex X diversity-valuing behavior and leader
performance. For our bootstrapped mediation analysis (MacKinnon, Lockwood & Williams,
2004; Schneider, Ehrhart, Mayer, Saltz & Niles-Jolly, 2005), we created 1,000 bootstrap samples
and thus 1,000 estimates of the mediated effect. This analysis tested for the joint effect of leader
sex and diversity-valuing behavior on leader performance rating through the mediator of leader
warmth. The overall indirect effect was -.06 (the 95% confidence interval for the mediated effect
ranged from -.13 to -.02 and did not straddle zero), indicating that the mediating effect was
significant (p < .05). Taken together, the evidence suggests that hypothesis 1 is supported.
In hypothesis 2, we argued that the gap in performance ratings between white and
nonwhite leaders resulting from diversity-valuing behavior would be mediated by perceived
competence. That is, nonwhite leaders who engaged in diversity-valuing behavior would be rated
by their bosses as having less competence than their white, diversity-valuing leader counterparts,
and this lower competence rating would be associated with a lower performance rating. As
shown in Table 2, the coefficient for the interaction term involving leader race and diversity-
valuing behavior was significant for leader competence (β = -.16, p < .05). The Aiken and West
(1991) methodology demonstrated leader diversity-valuing behavior was only negatively
associated with boss ratings of leader competence for nonwhite leaders, β = -.29, p < .05, not
white leaders, β = -.04, n.s. (See Figure 4). However, Table 3 shows the coefficient for the
interaction term involving leader race and diversity-valuing behavior was not significant for
leader performance (β = -.03, n.s.).
23

Although we tested for mediation using the Sobel (Baron & Kenny, 1986) and
bootstrapped (Lockwood, Hoffman, West & Sheets, 2002) analyses, neither revealed evidence of
mediation. Certainly, we found evidence that the interaction of leader diversity-valuing behavior
and leader race predicted boss ratings of leader competence; however we found no evidence that
this interactive effect influenced performance ratings through competence ratings. Taken
together, the evidence suggests that hypothesis 2 is not fully supported.
------------------------------------------------
Insert Figures 1 through 4 about here
------------------------------------------------

Discussion, Study 1
Our first study explored whether leaders are judged differently for diversity-valuing
behavior depending on their demographic characteristics. We found that diversity-valuing
behavior was only negatively related to evaluations of leaders who were nonwhite or female –
leaders who are thought to have the greatest potential to dismantle the glass ceiling. This finding
suggests that minorities and women might be able to advance their own careers by acting as
tokens and engaging in a low level of diversity-valuing behavior.
The relationships we observed indicate that biases against diversity-valuing minority
employees may creep into performance evaluations. Certainly, our first study has several
methodological strengths including the realism of a field study, leaders drawn from a range of
industries, organizations, and functions, as well as multiple respondents from two sources (peers
and supervisors). However, it also has some notable weaknesses including the fact that it is
cross-sectional, it only includes a small percentage of nonwhites (13.8% of the surveyed leaders),
the predictor variable of diversity-valuing behavior is measured subjectively (albeit with fairly
objective peer ratings), and we cannot be sure that some unobserved variables such as leader
24

speech accents, communication styles, nonwhite-sounding leader names, or objective
performance are driving or obscuring the effects that we observed. Therefore we conducted a
second study in a highly controlled laboratory context where we manipulated our predictor
variables of diversity-valuing behavior as well as leader demographics to address the limitations
of our first study, and to provide a more rigorous test of our conceptual model.
Study 2
The goal of this study was to show that the specific behavior of promoting and advancing
nonwhites and women into management, rather than simply observers‘ perceptions of these
behaviors, caused women and nonwhite leaders to be negatively stereotyped and receive lower
performance evaluations. To that end, we designed an experiment wherein student participants
were asked to observe a presentation given by leaders (trained actors hired from the acting
department of a university) regarding a hiring decision for a vacant project manager position. In
the experiment, all job candidates promoted by leaders were equally qualified and only differed
based on their demographics. This aspect of the study design allowed us to reduce variability of
the context under which diversity is promoted thereby providing a better test of whether the same
behavior of advocating for nonwhite or female job candidates would produce different ratings of
leadership performance depending on the leaders‘ demographics. Second, we assessed how
student participants not only evaluated the leader, but also evaluated the job candidate.
Sample
A total of 395 university students from a major western U.S. public university watched a
presentation where a leader from human resources (a trained actor from the University's Acting
and Theater Department) gave a presentation advocating for one of four potential project
manager job candidates. Participants were asked to take the role of human resource department
25

supervisors and evaluate the warmth, competence and job performance of both the leader (the
actor) as well as the job candidate (fictional candidate information displayed on a PowerPoint
slide). We randomly assigned 92 participants to watch presentations given by nonwhite male
actors, 57 participants to watch presentations given by white male actors, 132 to watch
presentations given by white female actors, and 114 to watch presentations given by nonwhite
female actors. Because of difficulties scheduling actors and because of participant no-shows, we
had unequal cell sizes. However, we ensured that our cell sizes satisfied the 20 cases per cell
rule-of-thumb (VanVoorhis & Morgan, 2007). Overall, 15.8% of our participants were nonwhite
and 41.1% were female, which is not too different from the overall U.S. population.
Design
To reduce participant awareness that they were participating in a race and gender related
study, we used a between subjects design such that each participant observed one actor
advocating for one candidate. To reduce concerns regarding single-stimulus bias and increase the
generalizability of our experimental results (Highhouse, 2009), we hired two white male actors,
two white female actors, two nonwhite male actors (American-born Latinos), and two nonwhite
female actors (American-born Chinese). In their scripted speeches, each actor told the audience
that the four finalists for the position were equally qualified and proceeded to advocate for one of
the four candidate finalists during the presentation, with the facilitation of PowerPoint slides.
The four candidate finalists included one white male, one white female, one nonwhite male
(Latino), and one nonwhite female (Asian). To provide a conservative test of our theory, we used
Asian and Latino American actors because Asian Americans are generally regarded as the model
minority (Hurh & Kim, 1989; Lee, 1994), whereas Latino Americans are typically associated
with more negative stereotypes (Burns & Gimpel, 2000; Dixon & Rosenbaum, 2004), although
26

less negative than those associated with African Americans (Devine & Elliot, 1995; Krueger,
1996). We provided one slide for each of the four candidates, with information on the left half of
the slide detailing each candidate's intelligence score, emotional intelligence score, interview
performance rating, reference letter quality, personality test scores, work experience quality,
ability test scores, and overall rating. The ratings for the sub-dimensions for all candidates were
positive and equivalent and overall ratings for each candidate were 5 out of 5. On the right half
of the slide we provided a high-resolution headshot photo purported to be of the candidate that
was taken in a professional setting. The candidate information was fictional in order to minimize
the risk that participants knew the candidates. After the presentation, the leader remained in the
front of the room and participants were asked to anonymously rate the leader and candidate's
perceived warmth, competence and performance, and to report their own demographic
information.
Measures
Leader performance. Our measure of leader performance was an average score of the
same three items used to measure leader performance in Study 1. Participants were asked to rate
on a five-point Likert scale (1 = among the worst, 5 = among the best): (1) How would you rate
this person's performance in his/her present job? (2) Where would you place this person as a
leader relative to other leaders? (3) Where would you place this person as an executive relative to
other executives inside and outside your organization? Coefficient alpha for this measure was
.93.
Leader warmth. We measured the perceived warmth of the actor/actress using the same
measure in Study 1. Participants were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly
disagree, 5=strongly agree) the degree to which the actor is: (1) Deceptive - Conceals the truth
27

for selfish reasons (reverse-coded), (2) Credible - Worthy of trust, believable, (3) Ethical - Lives
within society‘s standards of right and wrong, and (4) Scheming - Develops sly and devious
plans (reverse-coded). Coefficient alpha for this measure was .71.
To further establish the validity of our warmth scale, we also measured warmth using
Costa & McRae‘s (1992) NEO-PI-R 10-item altruism measure. Sample items of this measure
include, ―This person makes people feel welcome,‖ ―This person loves to help others,‖ and ―This
person has a good word for everyone.‖ Coefficient alpha for this 10-item measure was .86.
Across our entire sample, we found that the correlation between the two measures of warmth was
.68 (p < .001). Moreover, when we ran an exploratory factor analysis including all items for both
scales, all items loaded on one factor that explained 41% of the variance (Eigenvalue of 5.8).
Across all 14 items, the average factor loading on this single factor was .64 (lowest value was
.51). We viewed this result as strongly supporting the validity of our warmth items.
Leader competence. Perceived competence of the actor/actress was measured with the
same scale we used in Study 1. Participants were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale
(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) the degree to which the actor is: (1) Ambitious - Highly
motivated; determined to make progress, (2) Productive - Gets a lot done, and (3) Driven - Has a
burning, over-whelming passion to succeed. Coefficient alpha for this measure was .88.
To further establish the validity of our competence scale, we also measured competence
using Costa & McRae‘s (1992) NEO-PI-R nine-item achievement-striving measure. Sample
items of this measure include, ―This person works hard,‖ ―This person demands quality,‖ and
―This person sets high standards for self and others.‖ Coefficient alpha for this nine-item
measure was .89. Across our entire sample, we found that the correlation between the two
measures of competence was .83 (p < .001). Moreover, when we ran an exploratory factor
28

analysis including all items for both scales, all items loaded on one factor that explained 59% of
the variance (Eigenvalue of 7.1). Across all 12 items, the average factor loading on this single
factor was .76 (lowest value was .61). We viewed this result as strong evidence of the validity of
our competence items.
Condition. We had three conditions—one for sex, one for race and one that considered
sex and race at the same time. The sex condition included sessions performed by white male or
white female leaders (1 = the sessions in which presentations were given by white female actors,
0 = the sessions in which presentations were given by white male actors). The race condition
included sessions performed by white male or nonwhite male leaders (1 = the sessions in which
presentations were given by nonwhite male actors, 0 = the sessions in which presentations were
given by white male actors). The combined sex and race condition included sessions performed
by white male or nonwhite female leaders (1 = the sessions in which presentations were given by
nonwhite female actors, 0 = the sessions in which presentations were given by white male
actors).
Diversity-valuing behavior. Diversity-valuing behavior was measured by whether or not
the leaders advocated for white male candidates. In the sex condition, diversity-valuing behavior
was 1 when the leaders advocated for the white female candidate, and was 0 when the leaders
advocated for the white male candidate. In the race condition, diversity-valuing behavior was 1
when the leaders advocated for the nonwhite male candidate, and was 0 when the leaders
advocated for the white male candidate. In the combined sex and race condition, diversity-
valuing behavior was 1 when the leaders advocated for the nonwhite female candidate, and was 0
when the leaders advocated for the white male candidate. The scripts for the high and low
diversity-valuing speeches are below:
29

High diversity-valuing behavior script. "I‘m really impressed with all four candidates, but
the one that really stands out to me is [name of minority or woman candidate]. S/he will
be a fantastic choice and I think s/he will be a great leader. On a personal note, I think we
should really focus on the demographics of the employees. Diversity is really important
to me, and I think it should be important to our organization. All of the candidates are
equally qualified, so let‘s do the right thing and hire a minority/woman."

Low diversity-valuing behavior script. "I‘m really impressed with all four candidates, but
the one that really stands out to me is [name of white male candidate]. He will be a
fantastic choice and I think he will be a great leader. On a personal note, he looks like a
leader and looks like somebody who the team will respect. Whoever we hire will need to
get up to speed really quickly and get a lot done in short amount of time. After
interviewing all the candidates and looking at all their materials, I‘m convinced he is the
best person for the job."
Controls. Even though all participants were told that the human resource committee gave
an overall rating of 5 out of 5 to all job candidates, and thus all candidates were equally
qualified, we controlled for the perceived performance of the candidate using the same scale as
leader performance. Participants were asked to rate the candidates on the same performance
measure items used to evaluate the leader. Coefficient alpha for this measure was .89. Because
politically liberal individuals tend to have a more favorable evaluation of diversity-valuing
behavior (Harrison et al., 2006), we controlled for participant political affiliation (1 = self-
identified member of the Democratic or Green parties, 0 = self-identified member of the
Republican or Libertarian parties). Participant ages ranged from 18 to 29 years, and because
30

older participants may have more experience working under workplace diversity programs, we
controlled for participant age. Because foreign-born individuals may have a unique
understanding of U.S.-based demographic stereotypes, we controlled for participant foreign-
born status (1 = born outside the U.S., 0 = born in the U.S.). Because being a non-native
English-speaker could lead to participant misunderstanding the speeches, we controlled for
participant years speaking English. In addition, because individuals tend to have a demographic
similarity bias (Turban & Jones, 1988), we also controlled for the interaction of participant race
X leader race in the race condition, the interaction of participant sex X leader sex in the sex
condition, and both of these interactions in the combined race and sex condition.
Results
We regressed leader performance on our controls, predictors, and interaction to determine
the degree to which participants‘ ratings of actor performance reflected race and gender bias.
Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations between the study variables and
Tables 5 and 6 present the regression models we used to test our hypotheses. Consistent with
Study 1 findings, Table 4 shows that across all conditions, diversity-valuing behavior is slightly
negatively correlated with performance ratings (r = -.24, p < .05), indicating that on average
participants did not have extremely positive (or negative) views of diversity-valuing behavior.
---------------------------------------------
Insert Tables 4 through 6 about here
---------------------------------------------
In hypothesis 1, we argued that the gap in performance ratings between male and female
leaders resulting from diversity-valuing behavior would be mediated by perceived warmth. That
is, female leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior would be rated by participants as
less warm than their male leader counterparts who engage in this same behavior, and this lower
warmth rating would be associated with a lower performance rating. As shown in Tables 5 and 6
31

the coefficient for the interaction term involving leader sex and diversity-valuing behavior was
significant for leader warmth (β = -0.26, p < 0.01) and leader performance (β = -0.32, p < 0.001).
The increase of R-squared for the interaction term was 5% (p < 0.01) for leader warmth and 8%
for leader performance (p < .001). Figure 5 and simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991)
demonstrate that the simple slope of diversity-valuing behavior on leader warmth is significant
and negative for female leaders (β = -.33, p < .05) while the simple slope of diversity-valuing
behavior on leader warmth is slightly positive for male leaders (β = .05, n.s.). Figure 6 and
simple slope analysis (Aiken & West, 1991) demonstrate that the simple slope of diversity-
valuing behavior on leader performance is significant and negative for female leaders (β = -.44, p
< .05) while the simple slope of diversity-valuing behavior on leader warmth is slightly positive
for male leaders (β = .08, n.s.). Table 6 reflects that when warmth was entered into the model
predicting leader performance, the strength and significance of the coefficient for the interaction
of sex and diversity-valuing behavior decreased, which suggests that warmth partially mediated
the joint influence of leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex on leader performance ratings
(Aiken & West, 1991). We conducted the Sobel test (MacKinnon et al., 1995) which further
supports our hypothesized mediated effect (t = 2.57, p < .05).
To further test for mediation, we ran the bootstrapping test for mediation which is
thought to be superior to the Sobel test because it imposes no distributional assumptions on the
sample (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Across 1,000 bootstrapped samples, the overall indirect
mediated effect for our full hypothesized model was calculated to be -.19 (95% confidence
interval does not include zero and ranged between -.03 and -.39). The bootstrapped results show
that the indirect effects of diversity-valuing behavior on performance ratings through the
32

mediator of warmth are significant and opposite for male and female leaders, providing further
confirmation of our conceptual model. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
In hypothesis 2 we argued that the gap in performance ratings between white and
nonwhite leaders resulting from diversity-valuing behavior would be mediated by perceived
competence. That is, nonwhite leaders who engage in diversity-valuing behavior would be rated
by participants as being less competent than their white counterparts who engage in this same
behavior, and these lower competence ratings would be associated with lower performance
ratings. As shown in Tables 5 and 6 the coefficients for the interaction terms involving actor race
and diversity-valuing behavior are significant for leader competence (β = -.34, p < 0.001) and
performance (β = -.37, p < 0.001). Figure 7 along with simple slope analysis demonstrate that
diversity-valuing behavior is negatively associated with competence for nonwhite leaders (β = -
.42, p < 0.05) and positively associated with performance for white leaders (β = .18, p < 0.05).
Figure 8 along with simple slope analysis demonstrate that diversity-valuing behavior is
negatively associated with performance for nonwhite leaders (β = -.48, p < 0.05) and slightly
positively associated with performance for white leaders (β = .07, n.s.). The increase of R-
squared for the interaction term is 12% (p < 0.001) for both leader competence and performance.
Moreover, in Table 6, when leader competence was entered into the model predicting leader
performance, the strength and significance of the coefficient for the interaction of leader race and
diversity-valuing behavior decreased, which suggests that leader competence partially mediated
the joint influence of leader diversity-valuing behavior and race on performance ratings. Results
from the Sobel test further support our hypothesized mediated effect (t = 3.66, p < .001). Results
from the bootstrapping analysis also supported this hypothesis (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Across
1,000 bootstrapped samples, the overall indirect effect was calculated to be -.70 (95% confidence
33

interval did not include zero and ranged between -1.15 and -.33). In this way, hypothesis 2 is
supported.
We also wanted to examine whether nonwhite female leaders might be in double
jeopardy because of their race and sex. In order to test the joint interactive effect of race and sex
with diversity-valuing behavior, we used the experimental design in which nonwhite female
leaders were compared with white male leaders. Tables 5 and 6 indicate that the diversity-
valuing behavior X nonwhite female leader interaction significantly influenced leader warmth (β
= -.26, p < .05), leader competence (β = -.41, p < 0.001) and leader performance (β = -.44, p <
.05). The change in R-squared when including the interaction term was .05 for leader warmth (p
< 0.001), .12 for leader competence (p < 0.001), and .15 for leader performance (p < 0.001). In
terms of both standardized coefficients and explained variance, diversity-valuing behavior seems
to have a slightly larger influence on leader performance for nonwhite female leaders. When
both warmth and competence mediators were included in the model, the Sobel test revealed that
leader competence (t = 4.11, p < .001) but not leader warmth (t = 1.10, n.s.) mediated the
interactive effect of leader demographics and diversity-valuing behavior on nonwhite female
leader performance ratings. Across 1,000 bootstrapped samples examining the influence of both
proposed mediators simultaneously, we found that the indirect effect through competence was
significant (total indirect effect was -.81; 95% confidence interval did not include zero and
ranged between -1.20 and -.49), but the indirect effect through warmth was not (total indirect
effect was -.09; 95% confidence interval included zero and ranged between -.29 and .03). This
additional analysis further supports our hypotheses and suggests nonwhite female leaders may
face greater challenges than their white female or nonwhite male counterparts (and certainly
34

more than their white male counterparts), particularly due to lower competence judgments, if
they choose to engage in diversity-valuing behavior.
----------------------------------------------
Insert Figures 6 through 9 about here
---------------------------------------------

Overall Discussion
We set out to determine whether the glass ceiling might persist in part because women
and minority leaders receive lower performance ratings for diversity-valuing behavior. Across
two samples (field and laboratory) we found clear and consistent evidence of our conceptual
model, suggesting that ethnic minorities and women who engage in diversity-valuing behavior
tend to be negatively stereotyped and tend to receive lower performance evaluations.
Theoretical Implications
Our results primarily extend and enrich the expansive glass ceiling literature. While there
are many studies documenting the glass ceiling‘s existence, the majority of these impressive
studies are descriptive in the sense that they have shown that the glass ceiling is a real
phenomenon and pervasive across a wide range of organizations (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Hoobler
et al., 2009; Lyness & Thompson, 1997; O'Brien, Biga, Kessler, & Allen, 2010). Likewise,
another sub-set of the glass ceiling literature has sought to identify career strategies that
individual women and nonwhites have used to break through it (Hoobler, Hu & Wilson, 2010;
Lyness & Thompson, 2000; Ragins, Townsend & Mattis, 1998). Little attention has been paid to
the question of why the class ceiling still exists, despite the fact that so many organizational and
societal programs have been put in place to remove it (i.e. diversity initiatives, mentoring
programs; Freeman, Aquino & McFerran, 2009; Parker, Baltes, & Christiansen, 1997; Ryan &
Haslam, 2005; Zoogah, 2010). In this study, we took a different perspective and tried to connect
35

the dots between the glass ceiling‘s existence and common negative stereotypes afflicting
women and nonwhites. We found that engaging in behaviors that increase organizational
diversity hurts nonwhite and female leaders in the sense that minority leaders who engage in
diversity-valuing behavior fall victim to negative stereotypes, even though this behavior does not
appear to harm white or male leaders.
Our findings also inform this literature by highlighting the importance of understanding
how leader demographics interact with diversity-valuing behavior to predict leader performance
ratings. Observers (e.g. bosses providing performance reviews) have been found to rely most
heavily on stereotypical race- and gender-based judgments when defining employee performance
is highly ambiguous (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Goldin & Rouse, 2000) or when a
particular work role tends to be dominated by white men (Duguid, Loyd, & Tolbert, 2012; Joshi
& Roh, 2009). The job of a business executive is characterized by both of these attributes --
defining and objectively measuring executive performance is extremely difficult (Tosi, Werner,
Katz & Gomez-Mejia, 2000), and approximately 85% of executives are white men (Catalyst,
2012). Although we found no main effects of leader race and gender on performance evaluations,
as these previous findings would predict, we extend and enrich the literatures on race and gender
biases by highlighting that latent race and gender biases may be most likely to manifest when
leaders engage in behaviors that make a leader‘s low-status race or gender attributes salient to
observers.
By identifying bosses‘ perceptions of leader warmth and competence as the mechanisms
linking the interactive effect of leader demographics and diversity-valuing behavior on
performance ratings, we also inform the literature on race- and gender-biases. Uncovering these
mechanisms is a novel contribution as previous research has focused on examining how lower
36

performance ratings might result from a minority or female leader‘s perceived incongruity with
the leadership role (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rosette et al., 2008), or a leader‘s perceived
dissimilarity from the rater (Joshi, 2014; Sackett & DuBois, 1991). We extend this line of
theorizing by incorporating research on stereotype content (Cuddy et al., 2008) and show that
engaging in diversity-valuing behavior may undermine ethnic minority leaders‘ performance
ratings because this behavior make them appear less competent, and may undermine women
leaders‘ performance ratings because this behavior may make them appear less warm.
Our results also contribute to the glass ceiling literature by showing the glass ceiling‘s
socially constructed roots. Existing literature argues that minorities‘ physical and biological
features, such as women‘s pregnancy, greater priority of family over work, or the tendency of
minorities to avoid pushing too hard in negotiations are the major obstacles that contribute to the
glass ceiling effect (Babcock & Laschever, 2008; Hoobler et al., 2009; Liff & Ward 2001;
Williams 2003). Although we do not deny that these factors may also contribute to the glass
ceiling, we were somewhat surprised to find no significant direct effects of leader sex and race
on leader performance ratings, which we would expect to find if women and nonwhite leaders
were systematically discriminated against in the workplace. However, we found that the
influence of demographic minority status in combination with these leaders‘ diversity-valuing
behavior was associated with worse performance ratings for minority leaders than for majority
leaders, highlighting the importance of perceived social stereotypes rather than simple biological
features in perpetuating the glass ceiling (Ely & Padavic, 2007; Ridgeway, 1991).
Our findings may also highlight an avenue for future research to explore regarding how
attributions play a role in bosses‘ reactions to diversity-valuing leaders (Martinko, Harvey &
Dasborough, 2011). Although there are likely many reasons (selfish and unselfish) for women or
37

nonwhite leaders to engage in diversity-valuing behavior, to the extent leaders are perceived as
promoting diversity out of selfishness (e.g. when an ethnic minority advocates for another ethnic
minority), observers may discount the leader‘s perceived positive motives and focus more
heavily on the leader‘s perceived negative (i.e. selfish) ones.
Our study contributes to the understanding of in-group and out-group favoritism
(Ellemers, Heuvel, Gilder, Maass & Bonvini, 2004), that shows female and nonwhite leaders
tend not to favor their fellow low-status in-group members during evaluation and promotion
(Lewis & Sherman, 2003). Members of low-status groups (i.e. women and minorities) have been
found to advance the social standing of members of high-status groups (i.e. white men;
Chattopadhyay et al, 2004; Derks et al., 2011) because advancing high-status group members is
thought to provide low-status group members with a psychic reward in terms of a sense of
belonging among the white male demographic elite (Joshi, 2014; Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, &
Hume, 2001; Chattopadhyay et al., 2004). However, our results suggest that an additional
motivation for women and minorities to advance the standing of white men might be to avoid the
psychic (and actual) punishment that may be meted out to women and minorities who seek to
advance their fellow low-status group members.
We should point out that our results were strong and clear even when we controlled for
interactions of rater race X leader race and rater sex X leader sex. This finding suggests that
women and nonwhite bosses/raters tend to react just as negatively to women and nonwhite
subordinates/leaders as their white male counterparts do. Consistent with this finding, we also
found (particularly in our field sample) that some of the highest warmth/competence and
performance ratings were awarded to nonwhite and women leaders who engaged in low levels of
diversity-valuing behavior. Taken together, these two pieces of evidence provide some support
38

for the ―queen bee‖ and ―crab mentality‖ effects that are predicted by the tokenism literature (see
Shepard & Aquino, 2013, for a review). Indeed, one implication of our findings is that behaving
as a token (e.g. behaving as a powerful minority who keeps other minorities out of positions of
power) by engaging in a low level of diversity-valuing behavior may be a critical prerequisite for
the upward social mobility of women and nonwhite leaders. This finding is consistent with
evidence showing that minority and women leaders can gain access to the upper echelons of
organizations through ingratiating themselves to incumbents (Westphal & Stern, 2006; Westphal
& Stern, 2007), or downplaying their differences from incumbents (Zhu et al., 2014).
A great deal of popular press writing on the glass ceiling tends to suggest the glass ceiling
results from minorities preventing their fellow minorities from advancing (Heim & Murphy,
2001). If women and nonwhites would simply stop engaging in ―cat fights‖ and being envious of
each other‘s success, the thinking goes, the glass ceiling would disappear (Eckes, 2002; Epstein,
1980; Tanenbaum, 2002). Indeed, there is a body of research indicating that women are
especially competitive with female coworkers (Derks et al., 2011; Ellemers et al., 2004; Ely,
1994), and that nonwhites are especially competitive with nonwhite coworkers (Chattopadhyay
et al., 2004). However, our results suggest that minority and women leaders engage in diversity-
valuing behavior at their own peril, and that if they engage in this risky pursuit, their reputation
may be tarnished and their performance ratings may suffer. Thus our findings help explain why
minorities in powerful positions may feel motivated to limit the career progression of talented
minorities and women under their command.
Strengths, Limitations and Future Research
This set of studies has several strengths including experimental and field designs. We
also manipulated and subjectively measured diversity-valuing behavior, which further enhanced
39

confidence in our theoretical predictions (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). Thus, we took advantage
of the rigor and internal validity of laboratory contexts, and the power and generality of field
contexts. In addition, our moderated mediational hypotheses were supported using robust
methods (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The Preacher and Hayes approach has some advantages over
regression and structural equation modeling. The most prominent advantage is the ability to
derive a 95% confidence interval based on 1,000 bootstrapped samples and simultaneously
derive the indirect effect values for multiple moderated mediational pathways. This bootstrapped
sampling technique helps allay concerns about small and non-normally distributed samples.
Therefore, our findings provide consistent, strong, and compelling support for our theoretical
predictions. In short, the findings are fairly robust across jobs and industries.
However, like all research, ours has some limitations. One potential problem with Study
1 is that our measure of diversity-valuing behavior focuses somewhat on the leader‘s underlying
value of diversity rather than exclusively focusing on the leader‘s diversity-valuing behaviors.
However, Study 2 was specifically designed to address this concern by manipulating leader
diversity-valuing behavior. This feature of our set of studies bolsters our confidence in our
theoretical model, however future research could examine the extent to which a leader‘s value of
diversity has similar effects to actual diversity-valuing behavior on bosses‘ stereotypical
judgments of the leader as well as performance ratings.
Our measures of leader warmth and leader competence may be viewed as a potential
weakness of our research. As noted above, in Study 2, we measured these variables two different
ways – using the measures we used and reported as well as those using established scales. We
found that these established measures were highly correlated with the measures we used. Also,
the items for our measures and the established measures loaded on the same factors (e.g. our
40

warmth items and the altruism items loaded on the same factor, and our competence items and
the established achievement striving items loaded on the same factor). To further enhance
confidence in our theoretical predictions, we ran our regression and bootstrapping analyses
replacing our warmth measure with the established altruism measure as well as analyses
replacing our competence measure with the established achievement striving measure and the
results were nearly identical (and actually stronger in the case of competence) to the ones we
reported. For sake of consistency between Study 1 and Study 2, we decided to report results
using the same measures across both studies, and recognize that future research could explore
how different measures of warmth and competence might differentially mediate the joint
influence of leader sex/race and diversity-valuing behavior on performance ratings. Another
potential issue in Study 2 is that we had unequal cell sizes across conditions due to difficulties
scheduling actors and participants. However, the bootstrapping methodology is designed to take
into account non-normal sampling distributions which are typical of experimental designs
(Preacher & Hayes, 2008) and thus the significant bootstrapping results enhance our confidence
in our underlying theoretical model.
Practical Implications
One implication of this research is that the entire diversity framing plays a major role in
perpetuating the glass ceiling. Engaging in diversity-valuing behavior may be viewed as
demographically selfish for minorities and women, and demographically unselfish for white
men. If organizations (and researchers) would focus on leaders‘ homogeneity-valuing behavior
rather than their diversity-valuing behavior, the burden of proof would be shifted from those
trying to change the glass ceiling status quo to those trying to maintain it. However, we realize
that focusing on leaders' homogeneity-valuing rather than their diversity-valuing behavior is
41

neither fair nor practically feasible and simply replaces one problem with another. A fairer
approach would be to simply measure and reward the degree to which people hire and promote
individuals who are demographically dissimilar from themselves. Because white men currently
hold a clear numerical majority at the highest organizational levels, rewarding such demographic
unselfishness would naturally correct the demographic imbalances throughout organizations as
members of demographic majorities would tend to hire and promote members of demographic
minorities. Even if organizations do not change their reward structures, our results suggest the
glass ceiling might be weakened if researchers and managers simply stopped focusing on
employees' "diversity-valuing behavior" and instead shifted their focus to "demographic-
unselfishness behavior".
Somewhat counter-intuitively, our findings suggest that organizations seeking to advance
the standing of minorities and women might consider having a white male spokesperson for the
diversity office. Typically diversity offices are run by minorities and women, but our results
imply that for maximum legitimacy, organizational leaders might consider changing this.
Perhaps because he intuitively sensed our finding, the CEO of United Parcel Service (a white
male) serves as the leader of the company's diversity council because he believes "it makes
everyone in the company take diversity issues seriously." (Daft, 2011, p. 350) Likewise, we
found that raters tended to view demographic unselfishness very favorably (i.e. white men were
given higher performance ratings when they valued diversity, and minorities and women were
given higher performance ratings when they advocated for hiring a white man).
The nonwhite leaders in our field sample were primarily of Latino and Asian descent,
which is why we chose to conduct our experiment with actors from these demographic
backgrounds. Asian Americans are viewed to be "model minorities" because members of this
42

demographic group are generally respected by majority group members (Taylor, Landreth &
Bang, 2005). Moreover women might also be considered a model minority because on average
women tend to be evaluated more favorably than men (i.e. the "women are wonderful" effect;
Eagly & Mladinic, 1989). We find it striking that even such respected model minorities are
judged harshly and stereotypically when they advocate for workplace diversity.
The conventional wisdom is that even a few powerful minorities who have made it
through the glass ceiling will be able to help, mentor and promote members of their own
demographic groups, thereby dismantling the glass ceiling (Ely, 1994; Kanter, 1977). Ironically,
our results suggest that on balance the glass ceiling may actually become stronger, rather than
weaker, with each minority or woman leader hired. Because we found that diversity-valuing
behavior tends to be viewed as a legitimate behavior for white men, and an illegitimate behavior
for minorities and women, minorities and women may be able to advance their own careers to
the extent they reinforce the glass ceiling by engaging in a low level of diversity-valuing
behavior. Indeed, results from our field study shows that the highest performance ratings were
given to minority and women leaders who engaged in a low level of diversity-valuing behavior,
leading to the problematic conclusion that promoting and championing white men may be a
highly beneficial career strategy for minority and women leaders.
Conclusion
Our field study has several strengths including a large sample spanning 20 industries and
26 job functions, several control variables that help rule out potential alternative explanations,
and peer and boss ratings of leaders occupying some of the most powerful positions in the United
States. Likewise our laboratory study has several strengths including manipulated predictor
variables and carefully controlled conditions that rule out potential confounding unobserved
43

variables such as leader speech accents, communication styles, or objective performance.
Therefore, our findings provide consistent, strong, and compelling support for our theoretical
predictions that minority and female leaders who value diversity will tend to be negatively
stereotyped and tend to receive lower performance ratings. Our findings help diagnose one
reason why a major organizational problem persists (i.e. the glass ceiling), and thereby provide
insight into how researchers and organizations might remedy the problem (e.g. reframe and re-
label diversity-valuing behavior as demographic-unselfishness behavior).

44

References
Abele, A. E., & Wojciszke, B. 2007. Agency and communion from the perspective of self versus
others. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 751–763.
Abele, A. E., Cuddy, A. J. C., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. 2008. Fundamental dimensions of
social judgment. European J ournal of Social Psychology, 38: 1063–1065.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. 1991. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Sage: London.
Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the
relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization.
Organization Science, 14: 374-385.
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. 2009. Leadership: Current theories, research,
and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60: 421-449.
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. 2008. Women don't ask: Negotiation and the gender divide.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J ournal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K.D. 2001. Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5: 323-370.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and
Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic
Review, 94: 991–1013.
Bettencourt, B., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D. L. 2001. Status differences and in-group
bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and
group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127: 520-542.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. 1997. Gender-and race-based standards of competence: lower
minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. J ournal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 544-557.
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for
data aggregation and analysis. In Klein, K.J. & Kozlowski, S.W.J (Eds.). Multilevel
theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new
directions, 29: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bodenhausen G. V., Kang S. K., Peery D. 2012. Social categorization and the perception of
social groups. In Fiske S. T., Macrae C. N. (eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social
Cognition: 318–336. London: Sage.
45

Brambilla, M., Rusconi, P., Sacchi, S., & Cherubini, P. 2011. Looking for honesty: The primary
role of morality (vs. sociability and competence) in information gathering. European
J ournal of Social Psychology, 41: 135-143.
Brutus, S., Fleenor, J. W., & London, M. 1998. Does 360-degree feedback work in different
industries?: A between-industry comparison of the reliability and validity of multi-source
performance ratings. J ournal of Management Development, 17: 177-190.
Burns, C. Barton, K. & Kerby, S. 2012. The state of diversity in today‘s workforce. Center for
American Progress. July, 1 – 7.
Burns, P., & Gimpel, J. G. 2000. Economic insecurity, prejudicial stereotypes, and public
opinion on immigration policy. Political Science Quarterly, 115: 201-225.
Campbell, D. T., Stanley, J. C., & Gage, N. L. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Carli, L. L. 2010. Gender and group behavior.‘ In J. C. Chrisler and D. R. McCreary (eds.),
Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology: 337–358. New York: Springer Science
and Business Media.
Catalyst, 2012. High Potentials in the Pipeline: Leaders Pay it Forward.
http://www.catalyst.org/file/636/high_potentials_in_the_pipeline_leaders_pay_it_forward
.pdf. Retrieved on August 9th, 2012.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2005. Full-cycle micro-organizational behavior
research. Organization Science, 16: 434-447.
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. 2004. Identifying the ingroup: A closer look
at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy of
Management Review, 29: 180-202.
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. 2010. An other perspective on personality: meta-analytic
integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136:
1092-1122.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. 2013. Above the glass ceiling: When are women and racial/ethnic
minorities promoted to CEO?. Strategic Management J ournal, published online before
print 4 June 2013.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. 1992. Revised NEO Personality I nventory (NEO-PI -R) and
NEO Five-Factor I nventory (NEO-FFI ) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. 2007. The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup affect
and stereotypes. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92: 631-648.
Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. 2008. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of
social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 40: 61-149.
46

Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics of warmth and competence
judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior,
31: 73-98.
Daft, R.L. 2011. The Leadership Experience. Fifth Edition. Mason, OH: Cengage.
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., van Laar, C., & de Groot, K. 2011. Do sexist organizational cultures
create the Queen Bee?. British J ournal of Social Psychology, 50: 519-535.
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., Ellemers, N., & de Groot, K. 2011. Gender-bias primes elicit queen-bee
responses among senior policewomen. Psychological Science, 22: 1243-1249.
Desai, S. D., Chugh, D., & Brief, A. P. 2014. The Implications of Marriage Structure for Men‘s
Workplace Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors toward Women. Administrative Science
Quarterly, published online 12 March 2014.
Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. 1995. Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy
revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 1139-1150.
Devine, P.G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56: 5-18.
Dixon, J. C., & Rosenbaum, M. S. 2004. Nice to Know You? Testing Contact, Cultural, and
Group Threat Theories of Anti‐Black and Anti‐Hispanic Stereotypes. Social Science
Quarterly, 85: 257-280.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. 2000. Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999.
Psychological Science, 11: 315-319.
Duguid, M. 2011. Female tokens in high-prestige work groups: Catalysts or inhibitors of group
diversification?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116: 104-
115.
Duguid, M. M., Loyd, D. L., & Tolbert, P. S. 2012. The impact of categorical status, numeric
representation, and work group prestige on preference for demographically similar
others: A value threat approach. Organization Science, 23: 386-401.
Eagly, A. H. & S. J. Karau. 1991. Gender and the emergence of leaders: A meta-analysis.
J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60: 685–710.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Psychological Review, 109: 573.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. 1989. Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and
men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15: 543-558.
Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 543–588.
47

Eckes, T. 2002. Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the
stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47: 99-114.
Economist. 2008. Black America: Nearer to overcoming. The Economist. May 8: 34–36.
Ellemers, N., Heuvel, H., Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. 2004. The underrepresentation of
women in science: differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome?. British J ournal
of Social Psychology, 43: 315-33.
Elsesser, K. M., & Lever, J. 2011. Does gender bias against female leaders persist? Quantitative
and qualitative data from a large-scale survey. Human Relations, 64: 1555-1578.
Ely, R. & Padavic, I. 2007. A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences.
Academy of Management Review, 32: 1121-1143.
Ely, R. J. 1994. The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships
among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 203-238.
Epstein, C. F. 1980. Women‘s attitudes toward other women: Myths and their consequences.
American J ournal of Psychotherapy, 34: 322-333.
Finkelstein, S., Hambrick, D. C., & Cannella, A. A. 2009. Strategic leadership: Theory and
research on executives, top management teams, and boards. Oxford University Press.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. 2007. Universal dimensions of social cognition:
Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 77–83.
Freeman, D., Aquino, K., & McFerran, B. 2009. Overcoming beneficiary race as an impediment
to charitable donations: Social dominance orientation, the experience of moral elevation,
and donation behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35: 72-84.
Gaertner, Dovidio, Rust, Nier, Banker, Ward, Mottola & Houlette, 1999; Gaertner, S. L.,
Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M.,Mottola, G.R. &
Houlette, M. 1999. Reducing intergroup bias: elements of intergroup cooperation.
J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76: 388-402.
George, G. 2014. From the editors: Rethinking management scholarship. Academy of
Management J ournal, 57: 1-6.
Giannopoulos, C., Conway, M., & Mendelson, M. 2005. The gender of status: The laypersons'
perception of status groups is gender-typed. Sex Roles, 53: 795-806.
Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. 1997. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of" blind" auditions on
female musicians (No. w5903). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. 1995. Task-technology fit and individual performance. MI S
Quarterly, 2: 213-236.
Hansen, M. T., Ibarra, H., & Peyer, U. 2010. The best-performing CEOs in the world. Harvard
Business Review, 88: 104-113.
48

Hardy, C. L., & Van Vugt, M. 2006. Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 1402-1413.
Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. 2006.
Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: summary
and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1013-
1036.
Heilman, M.E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women‘s
ascent up the organizational ladder. J ournal of Social I ssues: 657–674.
Heim, P., & Murphy, S.A. 2001. I n the company of women. New York, NY, Penguin.
Highhouse, S. 2009. Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods,
12: 554-566.
Hillman, A. J., Cannella, A. A., & Harris, I. C. 2002. Women and racial minorities in the
boardroom: how do directors differ?. J ournal of Management, 28: 747-763.
Hillman, A. J., Shropshire, C., & Cannella, A. A. 2007. Organizational predictors of women on
corporate boards. Academy of Management J ournal, 50: 941-952.
Hitt, M. A., & Barr, S. H. 1989. Managerial selection decision models: Examination of
configural cue processing. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 74: 53-61.
Hoobler, J. M., Hu, J., & Wilson, M. 2010. Do workers who experience conflict between the
work and family domains hit a ―glass ceiling?‖: A meta-analytic examination. J ournal of
Vocational Behavior, 77: 481-494.
Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Lemmon, G. 2009. Bosses' perceptions of family-work conflict
and women's promotability: glass ceiling effects. Academy of Management J ournal, 52:
939-957.
Vedantam, S. 2013. The myth of the iron lady. Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101204.html. Accessed on December 1, 2013.
Hurh, W. M., & Kim, K. C. 1989. The ‗success‘ image of Asian Americans: Its validity, and its
practical and theoretical implications 1. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 12: 512-538.
Hymowitz, C., & Schellhardt, T. D. 1986. The glass ceiling. The Wall Street J ournal: A special
report—The corporate woman (March 24), D1, 4–5.
Ibarra, H. 1995. Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial
networks. Academy of Management J ournal, 38: 673-703.
Ibarra, H., Carter, N., & Silva, C. 2010. Why men still get more promotions than
women. Harvard Business Review, 88: 80-85.
James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and
without response bias. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98.
49

Joshi, A. 2014. By Whom and When Is Women‘s Expertise Recognized? The Interactive Effects
of Gender and Education in Science and Engineering Teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, published online before print 12 March 2014.
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. 2009. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic
review. Academy of Management J ournal, 52: 599-627.
Kanter, R.M. 1977. Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and
Responses to Token Women. American J ournal of Sociology, 82: 965–990.
Kingstrom, P. O., & Mainstone, L. E. 1985. An investigation of the rater-ratee acquaintance and
rater bias. Academy of Management J ournal, 28: 641-653.
Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. C. 1993. Assessing diversity climate: A field study of reactions to
employer efforts to promote diversity. J ournal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 61-81.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In Klein, K.J. &
Kozlowski, S.W.J (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions, 29: 3-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Krueger, J. 1996. Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial characteristics. J ournal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 35–47.
Kulich, C., Trojanowski, G., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, A.S., & Renneboog, L. D. 2011. Who gets
the carrot and who gets the stick? Evidence of gender disparities in executive
remuneration. Strategic Management J ournal, 32: 301-321.
Leach, C. W., Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. 2007. Group virtue: the importance of morality (vs.
competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. J ournal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93: 234.
Lee, S. J. 1994. Behind the model‐minority stereotype: Voices of high‐and low‐achieving
Asian American students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25: 413-429.
Leslie, L., Mayer, D., & Kravitz, D. 2013. The Stigma of Affirmative Action: A Stereotyping-
Based Theory and Meta-Analytic Test of the Consequences for Performance. Academy of
Management J ournal, published online before print 23 July 2013.
Levi, A. S., & Fried, Y. 2008. Differences between African Americans and Whites in reactions
to affirmative action programs in hiring, promotion, training, and layoffs. J ournal of
Applied Psychology, 93: 1118-1129.
Liff, S. and K. Ward 2001. Distorted views through the glass ceiling: the construction of
women's understandings of promotion and senior management positions. Gender, Work
& Organization, 8: 19-36.
Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to
test mediation and other intervening variables effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104.
50

Lyness, K. S., & Judiesch, M. K. 1999. Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into
management positions? J ournal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 158–173.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. 1997. Above the glass ceiling? A comparison of matched
samples of female and male executives. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 82: 359-375.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. 2000. Climbing the corporate ladder: do female and male
executives follow the same route?. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 85: 86-101.
Lyness, K.S. & Heilman, M.E. 2006. When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and
promotions of upper-level female and male managers. J ournal of Applied Psychology,
91: 777–785.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39: 99-128.
MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. 1995. A simulation study of mediated effect
measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30: 41-62.
Martinko, M. J., Harvey, P., & Dasborough, M. T. 2011. Attribution theory in the organizational
sciences: A case of unrealized potential. J ournal of Organizational Behavior, 32: 144-
149.
Melwani, S., Mueller, J.S., & Overbeck, J.R. 2012. Looking down: The influence of contempt
and compassion on emergent leadership categorizations. J ournal of Applied Psychology,
97: 1171-1185.
Mendoza, S. L. 2002. Between the homeland and the diaspora: The politics of theorizing
Filipino and Filipino identities. New York: Routledge.
Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N.
2007. Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection
contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60: 683-729.
Muller, D., Judd, C. M., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. 2005. When moderation is mediated and mediation is
moderated. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89: 852–863.
Nederhof, A. J. 1985. Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European
J ournal of Social Psychology, 15: 263-280.
Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and
subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367-408.
O'Brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. D. 2010. A meta-analytic investigation of
gender differences in mentoring. J ournal of Management, 36: 537-554.
Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. 2011. Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model
of personality traits: A meta-analysis. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 96: 762-773.
51

Park S.H. & Westphal, J.D., 2013. Social Discrimination in the Corporate Elite: How Status
Affects the Propensity for Minority CEOs to Receive Blame for Low Firm Performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 542-586.
Park, S. H., & Westphal, J. D. 2013. Social Discrimination in the Corporate Elite How Status
Affects the Propensity for Minority CEOs to Receive Blame for Low Firm
Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 542-586.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. 1997. Support for affirmative action, justice
perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial–ethnic group
differences. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 82: 376-389.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral Research Methods,
40: 879-891.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D. & Hayes, A. F. 2007. Assessing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Strategies, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42: 185–227.
Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. 1999. Burden or blessing? Expected costs and benefits of being
a mentor. J ournal of Organizational Behavior, 20: 493-509.
Ragins, B. R., Townsend, B., & Mattis, M. 1998. Gender gap in the executive suite: CEOs and
female executives report on breaking the glass ceiling. Academy of Management
Executive, 12: 28-42.
Richard, O. C. 2000. Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resource-based
view. Academy of Management J ournal, 43: 164-177.
Ridgeway, C. L. & Smith-Lovin, L. 1999. The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of
Sociology, 25: 191–216.
Ridgeway, C. L. 1991. Gender, interaction, and inequality. New York, NY: Springer.
Ridgeway, C. L. 2011. Framed by gender: How gender inequality persists in the modern
world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. 2010. Agentic women and communal leadership: How role
prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. J ournal of Applied
Psychology, 95: 221-235.
Rosette, A.S., Leonardelli, G.J., & Phillips, K.W. 2008. The White standard: racial bias in leader
categorization. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 93: 758-777.
Roth, P.L., Purvis, K.L., & Bobko, P. 2012. A meta-analysis of gender group differences for
measures of job performance in field studies. J ournal of Management, 38: 719-739.
52

Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. 2001. Implicit self-concept and evaluative
implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27: 1164-1178.
Rudman, L.A., Moss-Racusin, C.A., Phelan, J.E., & Nauts, S. 2012. Status incongruity and
backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female
leaders. J ournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48: 165-179.
Ryan, M.K. & Haslam, S.A. 2005. The glass cliff: Evidence that women are over‐represented
in precarious leadership positions. British J ournal of Management, 16: 81-90.
Sackett, P. R. & DuBois, C. L. 1991. Rater-ratee race effects on performance evaluation:
Challenging meta-analytic conclusions. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 76: 873-877.
Sadri, G., Weber, T.J., & Gentry, W.A. 2011. Empathic emotion and leadership performance: An
empirical analysis across 38 countries. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 818-830.
Schaefer, R. T. 1996. Education and prejudice. The Sociological Quarterly, 37: 1-16.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., Mayer, D. M., Saltz, J. L., & Niles-Jolly, K. 2005. Understanding
organization-customer links in service settings. Academy of Management J ournal, 48:
1017-1032.
Sheppard, L. D., & Aquino, K. 2013. Much Ado About Nothing? Observers' Problematization of
Women's Same-Sex Conflict at Work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27: 52-
62.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. 1994. Group identity, social dominance orientation, and
intergroup discrimination: Some implications of social dominance theory. J ournal of
Social Psychology, 134: 151-167.
Spector, P.A., Brannick, M.T., 2011. Methodological urban legends: The misuse of statistical
control variables. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 287-305.
Staines, G., Tavris, C. & Jayaratne, T. E. 1973. The Queen Bee Syndrome. Psychology Today, 7:
55-60.
Tanenbaum, L. 2002. Catfight: Women & Competition. New York: Seven Stories Press.
Taylor, C. R., Landreth, S. & Bang, H. 2005. Asian Americans in magazine advertising:
Portrayals of the model minority. J ournal of Macro Marketing, 25: 163–174.
Tosi, H. L., Werner, S., Katz, J. P., & Gomez-Mejia, L. R. 2000. How much does performance
matter? A meta-analysis of CEO pay studies. J ournal of Management, 26: 301-339.
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. 1988. Supervisor-subordinate similarity: types, effects, and
mechanisms. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 73: 228-234.
Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. 1998. A theoretical analysis of crossed categorization effects: A
meta-analysis. J ournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 894-908.
53

VanVoorhis, C. R. W. & Morgan, B. L. 2007. Understanding power and rules of thumb for
determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3: 43-50.
Vedantam, S. 2007. The Myth of the Iron Lady. The Washington Post. Monday, November
12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/11/11/AR2007111101204.html. Accessed on December 1, 2013.
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. 2006. The other pathway to the boardroom: Interpersonal influence
behavior as a substitute for elite credentials and majority status in obtaining board
appointments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51: 169-204.
Westphal, J. D., & Stern, I. 2007. Flattery will get you everywhere (especially if you are a male
Caucasian): How ingratiation, boardroom behavior, and demographic minority status
affect additional board appointments at US companies. Academy of Management
J ournal, 50: 267-288.
Williams, J.C. 2003. Beyond the Glass Ceiling: The Maternal Wall as a Barrier to Gender
Equality. Thomas J efferson Law Review, 26: 1-14.
Wilson, J.K. 2011. Bitches, Butt Boys, and Feminazis: Limbaugh's Sexism and Homophobia.
New York, NY, Thomas Dunne Books.
Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. 1998. On the dominance of moral categories in
impression formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 1251-1263.
Wurtzell, E. 1998. Bitch: I n Praise of Difficult Women. New York, NY: Random House.
Yarkin, K.L., Town, J.P., & Wallston, B.S. 1982. Blacks and Women Must Try Harder Stimulus
Persons' Race and Sex Attributions of Causality. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 8: 21-24.
Zenger, J. & Folkman, J. 2012. Are women better leaders than men. Harvard Business Review,
March, 15, 2012.
Zhu, D. H., Shen, W., & Hillman, A. J. 2014. Recategorization into the In-group: The
Appointment of Demographically Different New Directors and Their Subsequent
Positions on Corporate Boards. Administrative Science Quarterly, published online
before print 3 April 2014.
Zimmerman, R.D., Triana, M.D.C., & Barrick, M.R. 2010. Predictive criterion-related validity of
observer ratings of personality and job-related competencies using multiple raters and
multiple performance criteria. Human Performance, 23: 361-378.
Zoogah, D. B. 2010. Why should I be left behind? Employees‘ perceived relative deprivation and
participation in development activities. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 95: 159-173.
Zweigenhaft, R.L. & Domhoff, G.W. 2011. The New CEOs: Women, African American,
Latino, and Asian American Leaders of Fortune 500 Companies. Rowman &
Littlefield: Lanham, MD.
54

Zweigenhaft, R.L., & Domhoff, G.W. 2006. Diversity in the power elite: How it happened, why
it matters. Rowman & Littlefield: Lanham, MD.

55

TABLE 1.
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between Criterion, Predictor and Control Variables, Study 1

M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Leader performance 4.00 .84 ~

2.
Leader diversity-valuing
behavior 4.13 .47 .15 ~
3. Female leader .31 .46 .02 .16 ~
4. Nonwhite leader .14 .35 .01 .25 .12 ~
5. Leader warmth 5.43 .37 .24 .19 .08 -.02 ~
6. Leader competence 5.03 .41 .29 -.02 -.02 -.00 .20 ~
7. Leader pay $173,824.98 $88,717.81 -.09 -.05 -.15 -.09 -.08 .10 ~
8. Organizational size (headcount) 4,717.12 4,738.15 -.02 .02 -.05 .11 -.04 -.01 .04 ~
9. Leader education level 3.36 .97 .01 .01 -.11 .10 -.07 .00 .16 .05 ~
10. Leader hierarchical level 5.11 .32 .08 .15 .01 .08 .05 .08 .06 -.24 -.01 ~
11. Boss familiarity with leader 3.52 .52 .23 -.06 .04 .00 -.03 -.02 .05 -.14 -.03 -.02 ~
12. Boss hierarchical level 5.27 .89 .00 -.06 -.10 -.05 -.05 .02 .15 -.29 .10 -.06 .07 ~
13. Female boss .13 .34 .06 .16 .14 .15 .04 -.03 -.15 .07 .04 .04 -.06 -.13 ~
14. Nonwhite boss .09 .28 -.02 .13 .13 .21 .07 .03 .15 .05 .03 .04 -.03 -.04 .08

Note: N = 362 leaders; all correlations larger than .10 are significant at p < .05.

56


TABLE 2.
Influence of Leader Diversity-Valuing Behavior, Race and Sex on Boss Perceptions of Leader Warmth and Competence, Study 1
Leader Warmth Leader Competence

Model 1 Model 2 Model 4 Model 5
26 industry dummies .*** .*** .*** .***
20 job function dummies .*** .*** .*** .***
Leader pay -.08 -.09 .10 .10
Organizational size (headcount) -.01 -.00 -.00 -.01
Leader education level -.03 -.03 -.04 -.03
Leader hierarchical level .01 .02 .14* .14*
Boss familiarity with leader -.02 -.01 -.03 -.03
Boss hierarchical level -.02 -.03 .08 .08
Female boss -.01 -.02 .00 .01
Nonwhite boss -.10 -.12* .02 .02
Female boss X Female leader -.01 -.01 .07 .07
Nonwhite boss X Nonwhite leader .03 .03 .06 .06
Diversity-valuing behavior .16** .14* -.02 -.04
Female leader .10 .11* .08 .08
Nonwhite leader .06 .03 -.02 .05
Diversity-valuing behavior X Female leader

-.12*
Diversity-valuing behavior X Nonwhite leader

-.16*

Adjusted R-squared .12 .14 .11 .13
R-squared .20 .22 .15 .17
Change in R-squared

.02* .02*

Note: N = 362 leaders; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; to enhance ease of interpretation, standardized coefficients are presented.
57

TABLE 3.
Influence of Leader Diversity-Valuing Behavior, Race and Sex, and Boss Judgments of Leader Warmth and Competence on
Boss Ratings of Leader Performance

Leader Performance
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
26 industry dummies .*** .*** .*** .*** .*** .*** .*** .***
20 job function dummies .*** .*** .*** .*** .*** .*** .*** .***
Leader pay -.03 -.04 -.06 -.04 -.04 -.08 -.06 -.08
Organizational size (headcount) .11 .10 .11 .11 .09 .09 .10 .10
Leader education level .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 -.00 .01
Leader hierarchical level .08 .06 .07 .06 .06 .01 .06 .02
Boss familiarity with leader .24*** .25*** .25*** .25*** .25*** .26*** .25*** .26***
Boss hierarchical level .02 .02 .03 .03 .01 -.02 .03 .00
Female boss .03 .01 -.02 .00 -.02 .02 .02 .01
Nonwhite boss -.05 -.06 -.03 -.06 -.06 -.06 -.03 -.05
Female boss X Female leader .03 .04 .06 .05 .04 .05 .07 .06
Nonwhite boss X Nonwhite leader .05 .05 .07 .03 .03 .04 .06 .05
Diversity-valuing behavior

.15** .14** .10* .14** .15** .16** .11*
Female leader

-.04 -.02 -.05 -.05 -.07 -.04 -.06
Nonwhite leader

-.02 -.03 -.06 -.06 -.04 -.06 -.07
Diversity-valuing behavior X Female leader

-.16** -.13* -.16** -.14*
Diversity-valuing behavior X Nonwhite leader

-.03 -.02 -.02 .02
Leader warmth .23*** .16***
Leader competence .34*** .31***


Adjusted R-squared .13 .14 .15 .18 .10 .16 .18 .23
R-squared .22 .24 .26 .30 .24 .34 .26 .38
Change in R-squared

.02* .02** .04*** .00 .10*** .02** .12***

Note: N = 362 leaders; * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; to enhance ease of interpretation, standardized coefficients are presented.
58

TABLE 4.
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations between Criterion, Predictor and Control Variables, Study 2


Variables M s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Leader performance 3.44 .89 ~

2. Nonwhite participant .16 .37 -.04 ~

3. Female participant .41 .49 .06 .24 ~

4. Participant age 20.15 1.44 .00 .11 -.09 ~

5. Participant foreign born .09 .29 -.01 .37 .19 .13 ~

6. Participant votes Democratic .38 .49 .05 .13 .22 -.14 -.01 ~

7. Participant years speaking English 19.32 3.39 .09 -.41 -.25 .24 -.66 .04 ~

8. Job candidate performance 3.98 .73 .35 -.04 .10 -.03 .01 .12 .01 ~

9. Female condition .62 .49 -.13 .01 .04 -.01 .06 -.01 -.04 -.02 ~

10. Nonwhite condition .52 .50 -.04 -.02 .00 .02 -.01 .05 .02 .10 -.15 ~

11. Leader diversity-valuing behavior .53 .50 -.24 -.06 .03 -.04 .00 .01 -.05 -.02 .04 .04 ~

12. Leader warmth 3.76 .71 .42 -.04 .22 -.05 -.14 .19 .16 .30 -.03 .03 -.08 ~
13. Leader competence 3.73 .80 .66 -.01 .08 -.06 -.03 .09 .03 .29 -.09 .05 -.11 .41

Note: All correlations larger than .10 are significant at p < .05.


59

TABLE 5.
Influence of Leader Diversity-Valuing Behavior, Race and Sex on Perceptions of Leader Warmth and Competence, Study 2
Leader Warmth/Competence Rating

Sex Condition
(Leader Warmth)
Race Condition
(Leader
Competence)
Sex and Race
Condition (Leader
Competence)
Sex and Race
Condition (Leader
Warmth)
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Nonwhite participant .01 .02 -.04 .03 -.01 .00 .06 .07
Female participant .24** .22** .18 .15 .04 -.02 .28 .25
Participant age -.02 -.02 -.16 -.15 -.02 .02 -.11 -.08
Participant foreign born -.12 -.08 .24 .23 .12 .11 .04 .03
Participant votes Democratic .11 .09 -.04 -.05 .10 .10 .12 .12
Participant years speaking English .16 .18 .29* .32** .08 .03 .28* .25*
Job candidate performance .20** .20** .40*** .38*** .20* .17 .17* .16*
Female participant X Female condition -.07 -.04

-.11 -.07 -.03 .01
Nonwhite participant X Nonwhite condition

.03 .01 .12 .06 .04 .00
Diversity-valuing behavior -.07 .05 .09 .19* .01 .14 -.01 .08
Female condition -.02 .05

Diversity-valuing behavior X Female

-.26**

Nonwhite condition

-.02 .04

Diversity-valuing behavior X Nonwhite

-.34***

Nonwhite female condition

-.07 .09 -.01 .09
Diversity-valuing behavior X Nonwhite female

-.41***

-.26**

Adjusted R
2
.11 .16 .16 .26 .02 .14 .13 .17
R
2
.16 .21 .21 .33 .09 .21 .19 .24
ΔR
2
from previous model .05** .12*** .12*** .05**

Note: N = 189 in the sex condition, N = 149 in the race condition, and N = 171 in the sex and race combined condition;
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; to enhance ease of interpretation, standardized coefficients are presented.



60

TABLE 6.
Influence of Leader Diversity-Valuing Behavior, Race and Sex, and Boss Judgments of Leader Warmth and
Competence on Ratings of Leader Performance, Study 2
Leader Performance
Sex Condition Race Condition Sex and Race Condition
Variables
Model
1
Model
2
Model
3
Model
4
Model
5
Model
6
Model
7
Model
8
Model
9
Nonwhite participant -.09 -.08 -.08 -.03 .04 .03 -.05 -.03 -.04
Female participant .08 .05 -.03 .16 .13 .05 .12 .06 .05
Participant age -.04 -.05 -.04 -.12 -.12 -.03 -.05 -.01 -.01
Participant foreign born .02 .07 .09 .26* .24* .12 .14 .12 .06
Participant votes Democratic .06 .03 .01 -.06 -.07 -.04 -.04 -.04 -.10
Participant years speaking English .03 .05 -.01 .28* .31** .14 .18 .13 .09
Job candidate performance .26** .27** .20** .45*** .43*** .23** .27** .24** .14*
Female participant X Female condition -.10 -.07 -.05

-.16 -.11 -.08
Nonwhite participant X Nonwhite condition

.12 .10 .09 .14 .07 .04
Diversity-valuing behavior -.07 .09 .07 -.04 .07 -.04 -.16* -.01 -.10
Female condition -.11 -.03 -.04

Diversity-valuing behavior X Female

-.33*** -.24**

Nonwhite condition

-.05 .01 -.01

Diversity-valuing behavior X Nonwhite

-.37*** -.18*

Nonwhite female condition

-.19* -.04 -.09
Diversity-valuing behavior X Nonwhite female

-.44*** -.20**
Leader warmth

.32***

.08
Leader competence

.55***

.52***

Adjusted R
2
.06 .14 .22 .20 .32 .54 .12 .27 .52
R
2
.11 .19 .27 .26 .38 .58 .18 .33 .56
ΔR
2
from previous model .08*** .08*** .12*** .20*** .15*** .23***
Note: N = 189 in the sex condition, N = 149 in the race condition, and N = 171 in the sex and race combined condition;
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001; to enhance ease of interpretation, standardized coefficients are presented.
61

FIGURE 1.
Conceptual Model of How Leader Diversity-Valuing Behavior and Demographics Jointly Influence
Ratings of Leader Warmth, Competence and Performance
















Female leader
Leader Performance
Diversity-
Valuing
Behavior
Leader warmth
Nonwhite leader
Leader competence
62

FIGURE 2.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex on ratings of leader warmth, Study 1


FIGURE 3.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex on ratings of leader performance, Study 1






63

FIGURE 4.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and race on ratings of leader competence, Study 1



64


FIGURE 5.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex on ratings of leader warmth, Study 2



FIGURE 6.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and sex on ratings of leader performance, Study 2




65

FIGURE 7.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and race on ratings of leader competence, Study 2



FIGURE 8.
Interactive effect of leader diversity-valuing behavior and race on ratings of leader performance, Study 2




Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.