The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0261-0159.htm

EOI
25,3
The role of implicit leadership
theories in the performance
appraisals and promotion
188 recommendations of leaders
Birgit Schyns
Portsmouth Business School, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is explore the role that the implicit leadership theories held by
followers and supervisors play in the performance appraisals of specific leaders, as well as in the
promotion recommendations to higher levels of management that these leaders receive. In particular,
the focus of this paper is on the degree of match between the general images held by supervisors and
followers of how leaders are/should be (i.e. implicit leadership theories), and the concrete perceptions
that these supervisors and followers have of the actual leaders in question.
Design/methodology/approach – Several propositions are established taking into account the
moderating role of implicit leadership theories in the relationship between performance, on the one
hand, and performance evaluation and promotion recommendations, on the other hand. These
propositions are based on evidence of discrimination against women and ethnic minority groups
when it comes to evaluations and promotion recommendations. Recommendations for organisational
practice are derived from the issues discussed.
Findings – When there is a poor match between a supervisor’s implicit leadership theories and his
or her perception of a subordinate leader, this leader’s performance appraisal and promotion chances
are believed to decrease. In a similar manner, the implicit leadership theories of followers may
influence their appraisal of a leader’s performance.
Originality/value – This is the first time that implicit leadership theories are connected to leaders’
careers. This connection is made both in the context of equal opportunities for leaders and in the
context of optimising decisions in organisations. The implicit leadership theories of both followers
and supervisors need to be taken into account when evaluating and promoting leaders.
Keywords Leadership, Performance appraisal, Promotion
Paper type Research paper

Equal Opportunities International
Vol. 25 No. 3, 2006
pp. 188-199
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0261-0159
DOI 10.1108/02610150610687836
Introduction
This paper explores why some leaders climb the hierarchical ladder of an organisation
whereas others, under the same circumstances, do not. More specifically, this paper
examines the possible effect of the implicit leadership theories (i.e. the images others
have of the traits and behaviours associated with leadership) on the careers of leaders.
To this end, I investigate the role of the implicit leadership theories of followers and
supervisors of leaders in performance appraisals and promotion recommendations of
leaders. To date, most research on implicit leadership theories focuses on their effect on
perceptions of leadership (e.g. Awamleh and Gardner, 1999). The propositions in this
paper go further and refer to the evaluation of leaders. It also opens up research
possibilities into the potential mismatch between female characteristics and leadership
with reference to other groups within organisations. In addition, prior research on the
The author would like to thank Jacques Hagenaars, Judith Nye, Michelle Bligh, and Karin
Sanders for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
match between implicit leadership theories and the evaluation of leaders is transferred Role of implicit
to the promotion of leaders.
To ensure equal opportunities for individual leaders, as well as ensure the
leadership
assignment of the right person to the right position, performance appraisals and theories
promotion recommendations should be, and often are, based on objective performance.
However, similar to other types of ratings, performance appraisals and promotion
recommendations can be subject to rater-biases (e.g. Bauer and Blates, 2002; Stumpf
and London, 1981). The fact that performance ratings do not mirror objective
189
performance alone is reflected in the relatively low correlation between objective
performance and subjective performance ratings (Alexander and Wilkins, 1982;
Bommer et al., 1995). This simply means that other factors in addition to the actual
performance of a leader will play a role in the way in which he or she is evaluated. In
this paper, I will concentrate on the match between the actual behaviours and traits of
the person in question (in this case, the leader) and the extent to which these
behaviours and traits are in line with the ideas of others in the organisation (i.e. their
implicit leadership theories). I argue here that implicit leadership theories will take on
particular importance when it comes to considering someone for promotion. A
performance appraisal with minimal consequences for the advancement and future
tasks of the person under consideration may not activate comparisons to implicit
leadership theories to the same extent as a performance appraisal that actively results
in a recommendation for promotion. It is precisely this latter type of performance
appraisal that is likely to demonstrate the greatest effects of implicit leadership
theories. This means that the career of a leader can be dependent upon the match
between his/her behaviour or traits and the implicit leadership theories held by others
in the organisation. Although implicit leadership theories often refer to effective
leaders, I will also refer to implicit theories which identify characteristics of ineffective
leaders. The implicit leadership theories of both the leader’s supervisor, as well as those
of his or her followers are taken into account in this paper.
I will first outline what implicit leadership theories are and then turn to more
general evidence as to what affects the evaluation of leaders, including a discussion of
research on women and minority leaders. In the second part of this paper, I will transfer
the results of this research to the effects of implicit leadership theories on the
evaluation of leaders in general, and generate a number of propositions.

Implicit leadership theories

It is now widely accepted that individuals have implicit leadership theories, that is,
generic ideas about the traits and behaviours that leaders in general have (e.g. Eden
and Leviatan, 1975; Offermann et al., 1994). Implicit leadership theories are cognitive
structures incorporating the traits and behaviours that individuals associate with
the word leader. They are stored in memory and are activated when individuals are
confronted with leaders (Kenney et al., 1996). When activated, these cognitive
structures create expectations concerning what characteristics and behaviours a given
leader is likely to display. Implicit leadership theories are relatively stable mental
models (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004) and are developed early in life (Ayman-Nolley
and Ayman, 2005). This means that people are not a clean slate when they meet
someone labelled leader, but instead have preconceived ideas about appropriate
characteristics of a leader. One may, for example, assume that a person labelled leader
is authoritarian, quite independently of their actual characteristics. The ideas others
have about traits and behaviours that characterise leaders shape how they react to a
EOI person labelled leader. For example, research has shown that, once activated, implicit
leadership theories may cause individuals to believe they remember schema-consistent
25,3 information when in fact such information did not exist (Lord et al., 1984; Lord and
Maher, 1993; Phillips and Lord, 1982).
To date, little is known about the influence of implicit leadership theories in an
organisational context. Recent research suggests, however, that implicit leadership
theories affect the perceptions of leaders (Schyns and Sanders, 2004; Shamir, 1992).
190 Other studies have found that the match between implicit leadership theories and
actual leader behaviour can have an effect on both the follower ratings of leadership
effectiveness (Nye and Forsyth, 1991) and on the relationship quality between leader
and follower (Epitropaki and Martin, 2005). I assume that this match will also affect the
career paths of leaders. In the following section, I will set up a general theoretical
background for the effects of implicit leadership theories on the careers of leaders by
looking at the effects of implicit leadership theories and stereotypes on the
advancement of certain groups within organisations: namely, women and minorities.

Implicit leadership theories and female leaders

Female leaders in organisations are often said to experience the so-called glass ceiling
effect (Kanter, 1976): While they can see to the top, an invisible barrier prevents them
from getting promoted to these top levels of leadership. Heilman (1983) introduced the
lack-of-fit assumption, which may explain this effect: i.e. the stereotypes of women just
do not fit the stereotypes of successful leaders. This phenomenon is widespread and
has, for example, recently been observed in the military (Gibson, 2005).
Similarly, the ‘‘think-manager-think-male’’ phenomenon (Schein, 1973, 1975) may be
used to explain why women are not promoted to higher positions within organisations.
The think-manager-think-male phenomenon refers to the fact that, when thinking
about successful managers, people usually think of male attributes. Although this
phenomenon has grown weaker in the last 30 years, it can still be found worldwide
(Schein, 2001; Sczesny et al., 2004).
A third explanation for the small number of women in top management position is
grounded in research on the contents of implicit leadership theories. Offermann et al.
(1994) found that masculinity is a factor describing leaders in general. That means that
typically female characteristics may not come to people’s mind when thinking about
leaders in general. The behaviour of leaders is evaluated on the basis of more
masculine implicit leadership theories. This can be shown, by reference to recent
research on expectations directed towards men and women in organisations. Men and
women showing the same behaviour are evaluated quite differently due to the presence
of stereotypical expectations. Heilman and Chen (2005) argue that gender role
prescriptions impact on the reactions that others have to the behaviour of men and
women in organisations. To show this, they examined the effect of altruistic citizenship
behaviour on evaluations and recommendations. Generally, stereotypical
characteristics associated with women include a concern for group and individual
welfare, whereas strong achievement orientation is considered more typical of men
(Eagly and Mladinic, 1989). Altruistic citizenship behaviour should therefore be
considered to be in line with the female stereotype. Heilman and Chen (2005) found that
altruistic citizenship behaviour, when shown by women, neither enhanced the
performance evaluation nor the reward recommendation women received. On the other
hand, when displayed by men, it enhanced both. Furthermore, women who did not
demonstrate altruism were punished more severely than similar men. These results
point to ways in which women and men are evaluated differently when showing the Role of implicit
same behaviour.
Consequently, on the one hand, we can say that the negative evaluation of women is
leadership
due to a misfit between stereotypes about women and stereotypes about leaders (as e.g. theories
Heilman, 2001, implies). On the other hand, implicit leadership theories seem to differ
when applied to men and women. We can argue that women and men are confronted
with different expectations based on their gender role and that others react to their
behaviour on the basis of these expectations. In addition, implicit leadership theories
191
do not include female characteristics, which means that women may, in general, not be
evaluated positively in leader roles. There is, therefore, a general mismatch between
implicit leadership theories on the one hand and (possible) characteristics of women on
the other hand, which leads to reduced career opportunities for women.
The above shows that implicit leadership theories have an effect on the evaluation
and promotion of a specific group, namely women. However, this effect can also be
found for other groups in the labour market, for instance, ethnic minorities.

Implicit leadership theories and minority leaders

Although there is information available concerning the similarities and differences
between leadership theories in different countries and cultures, (or, more specifically,
theories about effective leadership; House et al., 2004; Bryman, 1987; Ling et al., 2000),
little is known about the impact of different cultures on the implicit leadership theories
within one country or one organisation. This, however, is important when it comes to
promoting ethnic minority leaders. Similarly to female leaders, they may not fit the
implicit theories about leaders in general, and different implicit leadership theories may
exist for minority and majority leaders. Consequently, minority leaders will probably
be evaluated less positively than majority leaders. Given that ethnic minorities are
even less well represented in the higher positions of organisations than women
(Morrison and von Glimow, 1990), we can assume that same mechanisms that explain
the small number of women in leadership positions can also serve as an explanation for
the poor representation of ethnic minorities in leadership positions. When a majority
leader and a minority leader apply for the same promotion, the majority leader will
have an advantage, as implicit leadership theories probably contain more of the
characteristics that a majority leader is supposed to possess than a minority leader is
expected to exhibit. Take Offermann et al.’s dimension dedicated as an example.
Minorities are often considered to be less dedicated to their profession than majority
members are, which puts them at a disadvantage when it comes to promotion. In
addition, there may be differences between implicit leadership theories and the actual
traits and behaviour of an individual who belongs to an ethnic minority.
Although the GLOBE study (House et al., 2004) showed considerable consistency in
implicit leadership theories across cultures, the fact that they asked their participants
to fill in questionnaires which provided a list of characteristics may have influenced
their results. It seems more important to look into qualitative studies on implicit
leadership theories to understand the structure of implicit leadership theories in
different cultures.
A study by Ling et al. (2000) focusing on implicit leadership theories in China can
help us to understand differences in implicit leadership theories across cultures. As
Offerman et al. (1994), Ling et al. used qualitative methods to assess the implicit
leadership theories of a Chinese sample. Whereas Offermann et al. (1994) found
sensitivity, dedication, tyranny, intelligence, attractiveness, charisma, masculinity,
EOI intelligence, and strength to be factors within the implicit leadership theories in the
25,3 USA, Ling et al. (2000) found only four factors, namely, personal morality, goal
effectiveness, interpersonal competency, and versatility. Although these two studies
took place in different countries, the differences in the findings can be translated to a
context where, for example, Chinese minority members lead in a US company. As the
implicit leadership theories prominent in US companies are different from implicit
192 leadership theories in a Chinese context, the Chinese leader is likely not to be
considered leader-like when he/she shows traits and behaviours that are leader-like in a
Chinese context. We can imagine, on the basis of these findings, that these differences
in implicit leadership theories could surface as a hindrance in the career of an ethnic
minority leader.

From group discrimination to individual discrimination: the effect of

implicit leadership theories on the advancement of individual leaders
The previous sections outlined how groups within organisations suffer from negative
consequences as the result of the implicit leadership theories and stereotypes held by
others, in that they receive negative evaluations and are not promoted to higher levels
of management. In the following, I will transfer these findings to individual leaders and
explore the effects of implicit leadership theories on their career opportunities. In
particular, I will investigate how the match between the implicit leadership theories of
followers and supervisors affects the performance appraisal and promotion
recommendations for an individual leader.
Implicit leadership theories can be, but do not have to be, in line with the perception
of a given leader. Or, to put it differently, raters can assume leaders in general show
certain behaviours or possess certain traits, which they do not perceive to be present in
the specific leader they are rating. These differences can be crucial for the evaluation of
an individual leader. If a leader behaves contrary to the image others have of a leader,
or, in this case, if a leader does not behave in a leader-like manner in the eyes of an
evaluator, then they are likely to experience negative consequences. Specific forms of
evaluation, such as performance appraisals and promotion recommendations, will thus
be influenced by the match between implicit leadership theories and how the
individual leader is perceived. This works in the same way as the match influences the
evaluation of leaders belonging to certain groups (women/minorities). Or as Chung-
Herrera and Lankau (2005) put it, implicit leadership theories ‘‘serve as a point of
reference when making ratings of individual managers’’ (p. 2033). Nye (2005) states ‘‘we
know good leadership when we see it’’ and our implicit leadership theories ‘‘allow us to
look for certain traits and behaviours that we associate with good leadership’’ (p. 41).
This means that a mismatch between the traits and behaviours belonging to a person’s
implicit leadership theories and the actual traits and behaviours of a specific leader
may result in a negative evaluation of the leader. Similarly, Nye and colleagues found
that participants (followers) rated the effectiveness of those leaders who matched their
own implicit leadership theories more highly (Nye and Forsyth, 1991) and judged them
more positively than those who did not (Nye, 2005). In contrast, Nye (2002) did not find
an effect of implicit leadership theories match on the attribution of responsibility for
success or failure to a leader. Epitropaki and Martin (2005) conducted a longitudinal
study on the effects of a match with implicit leadership theories on leader-member
exchange relationships and outcomes. Cross-sectionally, they found that a good match
with implicit leadership theories is positively related to factors such as an individual’s
relationship quality with the leader, as well as their organisational commitment, job Role of implicit
satisfaction, and well-being. leadership
This prior research suggests that leaders whose behaviour does not correspond
with their followers’ general leadership ideas will be devalued. According to Nye and theories
Forsyth (1991) and Nye (2005), leaders are judged more positively when they match
their followers’ implicit leadership theories, and the performance appraisal given by
followers will suffer from a mismatch. From this, I derive the following proposition:
193
P1. A match between followers’ implicit leadership theories and their perception
of a leader will be positively related to the followers’ performance evaluation
of that leader.
With respect to performance appraisals and promotion recommendations, it is, of
course, important to take into account the supervisor ratings of the subordinate leader.
The evaluation of a leader by his/her supervisor is not only dependent upon the actual
performance of that leader, but also upon the supervisor’s implicit leadership theories.
Objectively speaking, different behaviour can be similarly effective, but subjectively,
the supervisor may prefer one way of reaching that performance over another. This can
be illustrated with an example. From an objective point of view, autocratic and
democratic leadership behaviours may lead to the same standard of team performance,
but the supervisor may nevertheless consider discussing things with followers to be
inappropriate behaviour for a leader. In this way, the supervisor’s implicit leadership
theories can be crucial for his/her decision-making when it comes to the future of a
subordinate leader. When a subordinate leader’s traits and behaviours do not match
the ideas his/her supervisor has about traits and behaviours of an effective leader, the
performance appraisal and promotion chances of this leader will be poorer. Therefore:
P2. A match between supervisor’s implicit leadership theories of an effective
leader and his/her perception of subordinate leaders is positively related to the
performance appraisals of subordinate leaders and the promotion
recommendations for these leaders.

Types of implicit leadership theories

Although it is assumed in this paper that a mismatch between implicit leadership
theories and the perception of a leader has a negative impact on performance
appraisals and promotion recommendations, it is no doubt possible that in some
specific cases this may not be the case. It is necessary to take a closer look at the types
of implicit leadership theories that individuals can have in order to develop some more
differentiated propositions.
Implicit leadership theories have often been considered in the context of ideas about
effective leaders rather than leaders in general (e.g. the GLOBE project: House et al.,
2004). This means that the characteristics contained in implicit leadership theories,
although different for each individual that holds them, are all considered to be related
to leader effectiveness. That means that (using characteristics found by Offermann et
al., 1994) one person may think that leaders are charismatic, while another person
considers leaders to be tyrannical, but both think that these characteristics are effective
in the context of leadership.
However, some characteristics contained in implicit leadership theories can also be
considered to be ineffective (Schyns and Meindl, 2005). A recent study (de Ruijter, 2005)
was able to confirm this. De Ruijter examined the implicit leadership theories of 42
EOI employees in two different companies using semi-structured interviews. Participants
named the characteristics of ideal leaders, their own leader, and leaders in general. In
25,3 the last category, which reflects implicit leadership theories, she found several
characteristics that participants rated as ineffective. In addition, popular books such as
The Peter Principle (Peter and Hull, 1969) or the Dilbert Principle (Adams, 1996)
support the notion that implicit leadership theories can equally include the image of
ineffective leaders.
194 Consequently, we can differentiate between different types of implicit leadership
theories, namely, implicit leadership theories referring to effective leaders and implicit
leadership theories referring to ineffective leaders. Based on the ideas of the
expectancy violation theory (Jussim et al., 1987, 1996), the different types of implicit
leadership theories and the respective matches between implicit leadership theories
and perception can be assumed to have different effects on performance appraisals and
promotion recommendations. If and when a leader’s behaviour is in line with the
implicit leadership theories of his or her followers and supervisor, he or she may be
rated positively, but not highly so because the behaviour is ultimately in line with
expectations. However, if leaders exceed expectations, the rating will be particularly
positive. The opposite will be true for negative expectations. Figure 1 depicts the
possible combinations of followers’ and supervisors’ implicit leadership theories and
followers’ and supervisors’ perceptions of a leader.
We can see from Figure 1 that we must take the type of implicit leadership theories
into account when considering the match between implicit leadership theories and
perception. It follows from this argument that:
P3. The relationship between the followers’ and supervisors’ perceptions of a
leader and his/her performance appraisal and promotion recommendation is
moderated by the type of implicit leadership theories the followers/
supervisors hold.

Moderating effects on the relationship between implicit leadership

theories and promotion decisions
Although in general, this paper is built on the idea that implicit leadership theories
affect promotion decisions, the degree of impact may be very different in different
situations.
First of all, the decision as to who is promoted is based on certain criteria. These can
vary a great deal based on the type of profession as well as the type of leadership
position in question. Whereas in some situations there may be objective criteria for
promotion (e.g. sales numbers), in other situations, criteria are more subjective (e.g.
leadership qualities). Subjective criteria are more open to interpretation. Taking the
example above, for one person leadership qualities may include that of tyranny,

Implicit leadership theories

Figure 1. Positive Negative
The relationship between
Perception of leader

performance appraisal Good Very good

and a match between Positive performance performance
implicit leadership appraisal appraisal
theories and perception, Very bad Bad
depending on the type of Negative performance performance
implicit leadership appraisal appraisal
theories/perception
whereas for others it includes charisma. I assume that the less objective the criteria for Role of implicit
promotion, the higher the impact of implicit leadership theories. leadership
P4. The relationship between the supervisors’ implicit leadership theories and theories
his/her promotion decision is moderated by the objectivity of the promotion
criteria.
Second, decisions to promote are decisions that have to be justified to others in the 195
organisation. However, the degree of pressure to justify a decision can differ. If, for
example, only a minor promotion is in question or the decision maker has high position
power (e.g. the single owner of a small enterprise), the pressure for justification is
lower. When little justification is needed for a decision, less objective criteria can be
used in the decision process. Consequently, I assume that the lower the pressure for
justification, the higher the impact of implicit leadership theories on promotion
decisions.
P5. The relationship between the supervisors’ implicit leadership theories and
his/her promotion decision is moderated by the pressure to justify the
decision.
Decision makers can find themselves in situations that are more or less characterised
by uncertainty. That means if promotion criteria are objectively measurable and the
candidates in question differ significantly in the degree to which they fulfil the criteria,
little uncertainty will occur. However, if the criteria are subjective and the candidates
available are similar in their qualifications, other factors besides performance may be
used in the decision process. I therefore assume that the more uncertain the situation,
the greater the impact of implicit leadership theories on the promotion decision.
P6. The relationship between the supervisors’ implicit leadership theories and
his/her promotion decision is moderated by the uncertainty of the situation.

Discussion and conclusions

This paper explores the effects that the implicit leadership theories of supervisors and
followers might have on the careers of leaders. The propositions are derived from
research on the evaluation and promotion of particular subgroups within
organisations, such as women and ethnic minorities. I tried to show that these known
effects can also be applied at an individual level in the sense that a mismatch between
the traits and behaviours of a person and the implicit leadership theories of his/her
followers or his/her supervisor can diminish career prospects, at least under certain
conditions. If we take these theories to a broader level, the following proposition
emerges: leaders may suffer from fewer career opportunities not only because of their
membership of a certain group (women, ethnic minorities), but also because their
individual characteristics are not perceived to match those of effective leaders. This
match, or mismatch, can be based on personal implicit leadership theories, but also on
culturally shared implicit leadership theories (House et al., 2002). Imagine, for example,
that a leader from a more authoritarian country becomes leader in a more participative
country. Obviously, his/her leadership style, though common in his/her country, may
not be appreciated in the new culture[1] and may lead to diminished career
opportunities. On an individual level, a person may just not fit the implicit leadership
theories of his/her supervisor or followers and will therefore be disadvantaged in the
promotion process although he/she has the same capacity as the successful candidate.
EOI Knowledge about implicit leadership theories and the possible effects they have on
leaders’ careers is very important in organisations for two reasons. First, leaders
25,3 should be treated with reasonable procedural justice. This means that criteria used to
make decisions about promotion to higher management positions should be clear to all.
Although promotion decisions will often be based on objective criteria, it is also
probable that they will also be affected by implicit leadership theories. Organisations
should try to keep this part as small as possible so to provide fair decisions. One
196 approach is to create objectively assessable criteria for promotion and create pressure
to justify decisions about who is promoted and who is not.
Second, in order to be able to promote the best person, rater bias which is due to the
implicit leadership theories of supervisors and followers should be ruled out. When
implicit leadership theories do not play a role in promotion decisions, chances are
higher that the best person will be promoted, leading to better organisational
performance in the long run.
Understanding the effect of implicit leadership theories on promotion (assuming
that this effect can be empirically supported), does not help to prevent this effect in the
first place. As in stereotyping, making people aware of their implicit leadership
theories may even reinforce their use (Hilton and von Hippel, 1996). However, research
on stereotypes shows that people cannot eliminate stereotypes from their mind, they
can actively disregard them when making decisions (Hilton and von Hippel, 1996). In
the context of implicit leadership theories this means that raters can learn to overcome
bias which is due to the impact of their own implicit leadership theories. Recent
research on the prevention of the application of stereotypes in selection processes
showed that supervisors can activate the application of stereotypes when stressing
that discrimination is wanted (Petersen and Dietz, 2005). Turning that around can help
to prevent rater biases due to implicit leadership theories. It is important for
supervisors (and maybe also for HR managers) to stress that the fairness of promotion
procedures is in the interest of the company and that bias that results from implicit
leadership theories should be prevented.

Future research
The propositions outlined in this paper need examination. In the process of finding
evidence to support these propositions, researchers need to take some particular issues
into account as mentioned in the section on moderating variables. For example,
performance evaluations and promotion recommendations can be subject to different
degrees of standardisation. As with other ratings (e.g. selection Conway et al., 1995), the
effect of rater bias should be lower the more structured the evaluation, and the more
concrete the criteria for promotion. An attempt to rule out rater bias or subjective
judgements may be seen in the recently introduced Dutch university job description
system. Here the criteria for the promotional positions are clearly stated. It is, however,
still the supervisor’s task to propose an individual for promotion. We can assume that
implicit leadership theories can still play a role here, in that employees who do not fit
them will simply not be proposed for promotion.
Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the organisational context. The
implicit leadership theories found in a particular organisation could well be based on
experience and may indeed reflect traits and behaviours that are successful in the
specific organisation. This would mean that the choice to promote a person possessing
these characteristics and displaying the respective behaviour could indeed be the right
decision. However, implicit leadership theories are generally relatively stable (although
branch differences exist, Epitropaki and Martin, 2004), so that the effect of Role of implicit
organisational context on implicit leadership theories is not likely to be very leadership
pronounced.
theories
Note
1. A nice example comes from an international congress where I met a Dutchman, telling
me his company was being taken over by a US company. He complained that his new 197
leader actually told him not only what to do, but also how to do. Of course, this was an
affront for the Dutch participative culture.

References
Adams, S. (1996), The Dilbert Principle, Harper Business, New York, NY.
Alexander, E.R. and Wilkins, R.D. (1982), ‘‘Performance rating validity: the relationship of
objective and subjective measures of performance’’, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 7,
pp. 485-96.
Awamleh, R. and Gardner, W.L. (1999), ‘‘Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the
effects of vision content, delivery, and organizational performance’’, Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 10, pp. 345-73.
Ayman-Nolley, S. and Ayman, R. (2005), ‘‘Children’s implicit theories of leadership’’, in Schyns, B.
and Meindl, J.R. (Eds), The Leadership Horizon Series, Vol. 3, Information Age Publishing,
Greenwich, CT.
Bauer, C.C. and Baltes, B.B. (2002), ‘‘Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance
evaluations’’, Sex Roles, Vol. 47, pp. 465-76.
Bommer, W.H., Johnson, J.L., Rich, G.A., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (1995), ‘‘On the
interchangeability of objective and subjective measures of employee performance: a meta-
analysis’’, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 587-605.
Bryman, A. (1987), ‘‘The generalizability of implicit leadership theories’’, Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 127, pp. 129-41.
Chung-Herrera, B.G. and Lankau, M.J. (2005), ‘‘Are we there yet? An assessment of fit between
stereotypes of minority managers and the successful-manager prototype’’, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 35, pp. 2029-56.
Conway, J.M., Jako, R.A. and Goodman, D.F. (1995), ‘‘A meta-analysis of interrater and internal
consistency reliability of selection interviews’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80,
pp. 565-79.
de Ruijter, M. (2005), ‘‘Leiders langs de lat: Een onderzoek naar het leiderschapsprototype en
effectiviteit’’, unpublished Master thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg.
Eagly, A.H. and Mladinic, A. (1989), ‘‘Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward women and men’’,
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 15, pp. 543-58.
Eden, D. and Leviatan, U. (1975), ‘‘Implicit leadership theory as a determinant of the factor
structure underlying supervisory behavior scales’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60,
pp. 736-41.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2004), ‘‘Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor
structure, generalizability, and stability over time’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 89,
pp. 293-310.
Epitropaki, O. and Martin, R. (2005), ‘‘From ideal to real: a longitudinal study of the role of
implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes’’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 659-76.
EOI Gibson, S.G. (2005), ‘‘Perception of US military leadership: are all leaders created equal?’’ Equal
Opportunities International, Vol. 24, pp. 1-18.
25,3 Heilman, M.E. (1983), ‘‘Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model’’, in Straw, B. and
Cummings, L. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. V, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 269-98.
Heilman, M.E. and Chen, J.J. (2005), ‘‘Same behavior, different consequences: reactions to men’s
and women’s altruistic citizenship Behavior’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90,
198 pp. 431-41.
Hilton, J.L. and von Hippel, W. (1996), ‘‘Streotypes’’, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 47,
pp. 237-71.
House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P. and Dorfman, P. (2002), ‘‘Understanding cultures and implicit
leadership theories across the globe: an introduction to project GLOBE’’,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 37, pp. 3-10.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations the GLOBE Study of 62 Societies, Sage, London.
Jussim, L., Coleman, L.M. and Lerch, L. (1987), ‘‘The nature of stereotypes: a comparison and
integration of three theories’’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 536-46.
Jussim, L., Fleming, C.J., Coleman, L.M. and Kohberger, C. (1996), ‘‘The nature of stereotypes II: a
multiple-process model of evaluations’’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 26,
pp. 283-312.
Kanter, R.M. (1976), ‘‘The impact of hierarchical structures on the work behavior of women and
men’’, Social Problems, Vol. 23, pp. 415-30.
Kenney, R.A., Schwartz-Kenney, B.M. and Blascovich, J. (1996), ‘‘Implicit leadership theories:
defining leaders described as worthy of influence’’, Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, Vol. 22, pp. 1128-43.
Ling, W., Chia, R.C. and Fang, L. (2000), ‘‘Chinese implicit leadership theory’’, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, Vol. 140, pp. 729-39.
Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. and de Vader, C.L. (1984), ‘‘A test of leadership categorization theory: internal
structure, information processing, and leadership perceptions’’, Organizational Behavior
and Human Performance, Vol. 34, pp. 343-78.
Lord, R.G. and Maher, K.J. (1993), Leadership and Information Processing, Routledge, London.
Morrison, A.M. and von Glimow, M.A. (1990), ‘‘Women and minorities in management’’,
American Psychologist, Vol. 45, pp. 200-4.
Nye, J.L. (2002), ‘‘The eye of the follower – information processing effects on attribution regarding
leaders of small groups’’, Small Group Research, Vol. 33, pp. 337-60.
Nye, J.L. (2005), ‘‘Implicit theories and leadership perceptions in the thick of it: the effects of
prototype matching, group setbacks, and group outcomes’’, in Schyns, B. and Meindl, J.R.
(Eds), The Leadership Horizon Series, Vol. 3, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Nye, J.L. and Forsyth, D.R. (1991), ‘‘The effects of prototyp-based biases on leadership appraisals:
a test of leadership categorization theory’’, Small Group Research, Vol. 22, pp. 360-75.
Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K. and Wirtz, P.W. (1994), ‘‘Implicit leadership theories: content,
structure, and generalizability’’, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 5, pp. 43-58.
Peter, L.J. and Hull, R. (1969), The Peter Principle: Why Things Always Go Wrong, Morrow & Co,
New York, NY.
Petersen, L.-E. and Dietz, J. (2005), ‘‘Prejudice and enforcement of workforce homogeneity as
explanations for employment discrimination’’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 35,
pp. 144-59.
Phillips, J.S. and Lord, R.G. (1982), ‘‘Schematic information processing and perceptions of Role of implicit
leadership in problem-solving groups’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 486-92.
Schein, V.E. (1973), ‘‘The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
leadership
characteristics’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57, pp. 95-100. theories
Schein, V.E. (1975), ‘‘Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers’’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 340-4.
Schein, V.E. (2001), ‘‘A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in 199
management’’, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 57, pp. 675-88.
Schyns, B. and Meindl, J.R. (2005), ‘‘An overview of implicit leadership theories and their
application in organization practice’’, in Schyns, B. and Meindl, J.R. (Eds), The Leadership
Horizon Series, Vol. 3, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT.
Schyns, B. and Sanders, K. (2004), ‘‘Impliciete leiderschapstheorieën en de perceptie van
transformationeel leiderschap: een replicatie van Duits onderzoek’’, Gedrag en Organisatie,
Vol. 17, pp, 143-54.
Sczesny, S., Bosak, J., Neff, D. and Schyns, B. (2004), ‘‘Gender stereotypes and the attribution of
leadership traits: a cross-cultural comparison’’, Sex Roles, Vol. 51, pp. 631-45.
Shamir, B. (1992), ‘‘Attribution of influence and charisma to the leader: the romance of leadership
revisited’’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 386-407.
Stumpf, S.A. and London, M. (1981), ‘‘Capturing rater policies in evaluating candidates for
promotion’’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp. 752-66.

Further reading
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Corresponding author
Birgit Schyns can be contacted at: birgit.schyns@port.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints