The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1754-2413.htm

Work with
Desire to work with woman women
manager: interplay between manager

sexism and organizational culture

Arda Can Yesilirmak, Ozge Tayfur Ekmekci and
Pınar Bayhan Karapinar Received 29 July 2021
Department of Business Administration, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Türkiye Revised 16 November 2021
25 February 2022
9 June 2022
1 September 2022
Accepted 18 December 2022
Abstract
Purpose – The primary purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between ambivalent sexism
(hostile and benevolent sexism) and managerial choice, considering organizational culture as a moderating
variable. Additionally, the study addresses employees’ preference for working with same-sex managers as
opposed to opposite-sex managers.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 245 white-collar employees working in a
large-sized holding company in Ankara, Türkiye, using the survey method. PROCESS Macro was used to test
the hypotheses.
Findings – Neither hostile nor benevolent sexism directly affected managerial choice. However, perceived
gender equality within an organization was found to significantly affect the preference for working with
female managers. Gender equality in organizational culture did not have a significant moderating effect on
the relationship between hostile and benevolent sexism and the inclination to work with women managers.
Furthermore, the participants reported a tendency to work with same-sex managers independent of their
sexist attitudes and perceived organizational culture.
Originality/value – This study sheds light on the literature by examining the joint effects of sexism and
perceived gender inequality on the desire of working women managers. In doing so, this study differs from
previous studies focusing solely on individual variables such as personality and sexism or situational
variables as hindering factors for women’s attainment of managerial positions.
Keywords Women manager, Hostile sexism, Benevolent sexism, Organizational culture,
Same-sex preference
Paper type Research paper

The percentage of women in senior management roles globally reached 29% in 2019 and
remained so in 2020 (Thornton, 2020). While women continue to occupy managerial
positions in support departments, men often assume high-status positions in important
departments such as operations management and finance, providing them critical
experiences for CEO and board-level positions (International Labor Organization, 2019; cited
in Catalyst, 2020). The major differences between women and men regarding accession to
managerial positions provided an impetus for research, which largely focused on factors
hindering women’s promotion to top leadership positions. Some studies reveal that hostile
and benevolent sexism, which are based on traditional gender roles, and stereotypes, play a
key role in explaining the attitudes toward women managers (Eagly and Carli, 2007).
Correspondingly, the 2016 US Presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald
Gender in Management: An
This paper is derived from the first author’s unpublished master’s thesis done at Hacettepe International Journal
University under the direction of the second author. The proofreading and editing of the paper were © Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2413
undertaken by Hacettepe Teknoloji Transfer Merkezi. DOI 10.1108/GM-07-2021-0225
GM Trump underscores the significance of sexist beliefs. Trump supporters demonstrated a
higher level of hostile sexism and more conservative attitudes toward women than Clinton
supporters (Ratliff et al., 2019). Considering real-life examples and research findings, it
seems worthwhile to examine the role of sexism in managerial choices.
Aside from revealing the plausible role of sexism, understanding the direct and
moderating effects of organizational culture on managerial choices merits attention. To the
best of the authors’ knowledge, to date (Hindman and Walker, 2020; Sakalli-Ugurlu and
Beydogan, 2002), the majority of research has concentrated on individual variables such as
personality and sexism as impediments to women achieving managerial positions, while
ignoring the potential moderating effect of situational variables such as organizational
characteristics and culture. Some studies (Itzin, 1995) associating the gendered nature or
maleness of cultures with gender inequality in organizations concentrated solely on
organizational culture without considering the interaction between individual differences
and organizational culture. To acquire a more complete picture of gender inequalities in
managerial roles, the primary objective of this study is to explore the moderating effect of
perceived gender inequality in organizational culture on the association between sexist
attitudes and managerial choices.
Conducting the current study in Türkiye, where modern (i.e. secularism) and traditional
values (i.e. religiousness and patriarchy) co-exist, has the potential to contribute to extant
literature. With rapid urbanization improving women’s status in Turkish society and work-
life in the last three decades, a considerable number of women began to be represented in
high-skilled and technical professions (Kabasakal et al., 2016). Although the ratio of women
in senior and middle management positions in companies rose from 14.4% in 2012 to 17.5%
in 2019, the representation of women in managerial positions is still far below the desired
levels (Sumer, 2006).
Sexist ideologies remain prevalent in Türkiye, which results in gender inequalities
within the society (Tekkas et al., 2020). Nevertheless, Türkiye is relatively high in
ambivalent sexism compared to Western nations (Glick et al., 2000). Besides, as Sumer
(2006) indicates, women employees in Türkiye still face benevolent sexist attitudes,
potentially emanating from paternalistic tendencies widespread in organizational cultures.
More specifically, Turkish men were reported to have higher scores on benevolent sexism,
hostile sexism and masculinity, than did women (Özdemir and Sakallı, 2022). Moreover,
traditional gender hierarchy in Türkiye manifests itself as “acceptance of gender inequality
and hostile attitudes toward non-conforming women” (Glick et al., 2016, cited in Acar and
Sumer, 2018, p. 17). Therefore, Glick et al. (2016) argue that hostile sexism may be perceived
less negatively in Türkiye compared to Western countries, and individuals may
demonstrate their negative attitudes toward non-traditional and non-conforming women
(Acar and Sumer, 2018) without feeling too much disturbance. Despite the abundance of
research on the relationship between ambivalent sexism and working with women
managers, it seems worthwhile to investigate the impact of ambivalent sexism on the desire
or reluctance to work with women managers in the Turkish business context, which is
influenced by both modernist and traditional values, and thus remains in limbo.

Ambivalent sexism and managerial choice

Sexism refers to an inclination to support sentiments associated with gender stereotypes
(Brown and Stone, 2016). The ambivalent sexism plays role in creating stereotypes about
how women and men should behave (Chen et al., 2009) and justifies inequalities between
women and men (Akarsu and Sakallı, 2021). Although sexism commonly emphasizes
unfavorable attitudes toward women, the ambivalent sexism theory (Glick and Fiske, 1996)
distinguishes hostile sexism from benevolent one. Hostile sexism refers to explicitly Work with
antagonistic, disparaging attitudes toward women, which reinforces male dominance, women
whereas benevolent sexism involves seemingly more favorable demeaning attitudes toward
women, which assumes that women are perfect but fragile and require male protection and
manager
provision (Glick et al., 2016).
In the last decade, researchers began evaluating how hostile and benevolent sexism affect
attitudes toward managers and managerial choices (Masser and Abrams, 2004; Salvaggio et al.,
2009). Glick and Fiske (1996) argued that hostile sexism predicts less positive attitudes toward
career-oriented women and subsequent studies have provided evidence supporting this
argument. For instance, Masser and Abrams (2004) reported that people with high levels of
hostile sexism make more negative evaluations about female candidates and are less likely to
recommend women for managerial positions. Salvaggio et al (2009) conducted two studies to
examine how sexist attitudes influence responses to hypothetical job applicants in the USA.
With a sample of undergraduate and graduate students, the results supported the “think
managers,” “think male hypothesis.” However, researchers (Salvaggio et al., 2009) noted that
the impacts of ambivalent sexism may be more visible in candidate evaluations when the
applicant’s gender is unknown. Accordingly, individuals with high hostile sexism scores
perceive a gender-ambiguous applicant to be male and are more likely to provide favorable
evaluations for these applicants in male-dominated job positions. Similarly, Al-Mutawa (2020)
concluded from the interviews conducted in the United Arab Emirates that women who
support hostile sexism have conflicting attitudes toward women managers. They denigrate
female managers while still praising the presence of women leaders/managers as a sign of
progress. In the Turkish sample, Sakalli-Ugurlu and Beydogan (2002) also documented that
college students, with high scores on hostile sexism, have more negative opinions toward
women managers. As hostile sexism endorses traditional gender roles and male dominance, it
can be expected that individuals who have hostile sexist attitudes are also far from the idea of
accepting women managers.
Managers with benevolent sexist attitudes support women in family-related issues, yet
they tend not to provide adequate career support to them (Hideg and Shen, 2019).
Correspondingly, undermining the provision of crucial resources and support at work is
negatively related to women’s attainment of leadership positions. Conversely, male
employees are assigned more challenging experiences when their evaluators are male (King
et al., 2012), which makes them more equipped for managerial positions. In Good and
Rudman’s (2010) study, interviewers treating female job applicants in a benevolently sexist
manner are considered to regard female candidates as less skilled and refrain from
recruiting them for managerial positions. This finding is interpreted with the tendency of
managers to keep women away from challenging situations, either consciously or
subconsciously. In a Canadian sample, Hideg and Ferris (2016) demonstrated that
individuals with benevolent sexist attitudes support employment equality, yet this support
is limited to jobs that are seen as feminine rather than masculine. The researchers indicated
that benevolent sexism may seem to support gender equality, yet it undermines it by
contributing to occupational gender segregation and encouraging passivity to advance
women in underrepresented positions like managerial ones. In the Turkish sample, Acar and
Sumer (2018) showed that persons with benevolent sexist attitudes favor female leaders
more than male counterparts only when organizational performance is good. However,
because persons with sexist attitudes perceive leadership as a “man’s job,” female
employees are viewed as more qualified for leadership roles than male employees when the
organization’s performance is poor (Acar and Sumer, 2018).
GM Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) has been used as the main paradigm to explain the effects
of sexist attitudes. Regarding gender role expectations, men are supposed to be agentic like
being aggressive, competitive, rational and succinct. Women, meanwhile, are supposed to be
communal like being emotional, expressive, nurturing and cooperative (Eagly, 1987). In line
with the social role theory assumptions, leadership is considered a main social role for men.
Therefore, being a woman and having a leadership position violates the norms associated
with gender stereotypes and could lead to negative attitudes toward women managers.
Supporting this notion, Glick and Fiske’s ambivalent sexism theory (1996) posits that as
long as the woman adapts to the gender role imposed on her socially, she is protected by
encountering benevolent sexist tendencies. However, women who violate these gender roles
may face hostile sexist attitudes. Accordingly, it is expected that individuals with hostile
sexist attitudes will attribute the leadership roles to men and do not prefer women as their
managers:

H1a. Hostile sexism tendency negatively predicts the desire for working with women
managers.
Those with benevolent sexist attitudes consider women to be inferior to men in terms of
agentic capabilities (Glick et al., 2016). Effectively, benevolent sexism involves disparaging
attitudes toward women and assumes that women need protection and support. By keeping
women away from difficult situations for the sake of protecting them, benevolent sexism
could result in lower preference toward women managers as well:

H1b. Benevolent sexism tendencies negatively predict the desire for working with
women managers.

Main and moderating effect of organizational culture on managerial choice

Organizational culture, regarded as the shared, taken-for-granted assumptions held by
group members (Schein, 1991), could impact group members’ behavior by influencing how
they view their work environment. Based on the premise of the social information
processing approach, individuals learn which attitudes and behaviors are acceptable in an
organization, including those regarding gender equality and inequality (Salancik and
Pfeffer, 1978). In this vein, cultural mechanisms could create discriminatory practices and
behaviors; therefore, organizational cultures could “exclude as well as include” (Rutherford,
2001, p. 372), and it is often women who are excluded from managerial positions (Koca et al.,
2011).
Hofstede (2001) argues that the endorsement of traditional gender role attitudes could be
high in relatively masculine cultures. Accordingly, male-dominated cultures have more
hierarchical, independent and autocratic management styles, which are perceived as an
obstacle to women’s advancement to managerial positions (Hofstede, 2001). In line with this,
Cabeza-García et al. (2019) found that, while positive gender regulations and quotas are
favorably connected to gender diversity on boards, the percentage of women in senior
management is still lower in masculine cultures. In this vein, post-structural feminism
claims that “how gender power relations are constituted, reproduced and contested” should
be acknowledged to understand why women endure social interactions that subordinate
their interests to those of masculinist culture (Weedon, 1987; cited as Mumby, 1996). Mumby
(1996) and Metcalfe (2008) discuss that the poststructuralist feminist perspective involves a
rejection of male-centered language in favor of a gender-neutral and more inclusive
language, focusing on power and domination within societies and acknowledging the
differences between women and men. Based on post-structural feminist theory, it can be Work with
argued that male-centered language and structural power relations in favor of men may women
adversely affect women’s chances at managerial positions.
Although masculinity and power distance are the most cited cultural dimensions that
manager
may impact the managerial choice, gender egalitarianism could also affect female
representation in managerial positions. Gender egalitarianism refers to “[. . .] societies’
beliefs about whether members’ biological sex should determine the roles that they play in
their homes, business organizations, and communities” (House et al., 2004, p. 347). In low
gender-egalitarian culture, the endorsement of traditional gender role attitudes is expected
to be high, which could be an obstacle to women’s advancement to managerial positions
(Hofstede, 2001). Accordingly, organizations and societies characterized by low gender
egalitarianism might have fewer women in positions of authority (House et al., 2004, p. 30).
Furthermore, in low-gender-equity cultures, women are seen as emotional and irrational
leaders, while masculine attributes are thought to be more compatible with ideal leadership
in organizations (Paris et al., 2009). As Abadi et al. (2022) noted, traditional masculine beliefs
might create barriers, especially to the Middle Eastern women managers’ careers because of
the patriarchal power relations, male’s negative attitude and stereotypes toward women’s
capabilities. Nevertheless, Helgesen and Johnson (2010) demonstrated that the rewards and
promotions offered in organizations are still reflecting male leadership culture. Specifically,
the beliefs, expectations and evaluation of leadership within an organization become part of
organizational culture and affect the perception of gender equality within organizations.
Accordingly, it is revealed that a high level of gender equity perceptions leads to higher
rates of women in management (Bajdo and Dickson, 2001). Following this corollary, it is
reasonable to expect perceived gender equality or inequality in organizational culture to
directly affect employees’ desire for working with female managers:

H2. Perceived gender equality in organizational culture positively predicts the desire for
working with women managers.
Cheng et al. (2020, p. 785) indicate that “one’s standing on hostile and benevolent sexism are
strongly influenced by one’s views of the social world.” In this vein, ambivalent sexism, as an
individual difference variable could interact with the cultural elements within the society and
organization. As employees are expected to behave in accordance with perceived
organizational culture, the study assumes that organizational culture could play a moderating
role between sexist attitudes and managerial choice based on the contact hypothesis (Allport,
1954). This hypothesis mainly suggests that increased interaction between members of
different groups and the working of those groups for a common purpose can reduce stereotypes
and endorse tolerance. Accordingly, in organizations with high perceived gender equality,
employees can have more contact with employees of the opposite sex. This might reduce
stereotypes against women managers and increase support for female employees to achieve
managerial positions. Supporting this, Stoker et al. (2012) demonstrated that employees
working with a women manager, and in organizations with high rates of women managers,
have a stronger preference for female managers. Effectively, it seems that as the number of
women managers increases, male employees appreciate feminine characteristics in leadership.
Therefore, the negative effect of hostile and benevolent sexism on the desire for working with
women managers could be alleviated owing to increased contact with women managers with
the support of organizational culture:

H3a. Perceived gender equality within organizations moderates the relationship between
hostile sexism and the desire to work with women managers such that the negative
GM effect of hostile sexism on the preference for working with women managers is
stronger in organizational cultures with low perceived gender equality.
H3b: Perceived gender equality within organizations moderates the relationship between
benevolent sexism and the desire to work with women managers such that the
negative effect of benevolent sexism on the preference for working with women
managers is stronger in organizational cultures with low perceived gender equality.
However, employees may prefer same-sex managers when we consider the similarity-
attraction hypothesis (Byrne et al., 1986) and social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979).
The similarity-attraction hypothesis acknowledges an individual’s tendency to be attracted
to others who are similar to themselves (Byrne et al., 1986; Ruijten, 2021). Specifically, people
tend to appreciate others when they perceive that they have several things in common.
Following the similarity-attraction assumption, Foley et al. (2006) indicate that employees
who work with same-sex managers anticipate receiving extra support and hence prefer to
work with same-sex managers.
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) might also be used as an alternative
framework for predicting managerial choice. Accordingly, individuals may tend to classify
themselves and others into different social groups, based on their similarities and shared values
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Individuals are more likely to work with a same-sex manager due to
their ability to identify more easily with a manager who shares comparable demographic
attributes. Women managers may be viewed more favorably by female employees in this
context because they can contribute to the group’s success and alleviate women employees’
confusion about their own identities. This reasoning appears to apply equally to male
employees:

H4. The desire for working with same-sex managers is stronger than the preference for
working with opposite-sex managers.

Method
Sample and procedure
Before data collection, Hacettepe University’s ethical approval was acquired (Approval code:
35853172-300). Following that, consent for data collection was obtained from the human
resource department of the participant institution. No monetary or non-monetary incentives
were offered in exchange for participation, and all individuals provided written informed
consent.
Data were collected from white-collar employees of a large-sized holding company,
operating in a variety of sectors (i.e. construction, energy, insurance, defense, etc.). While the
research was being conducted, the company was employing approximately 25,000
employees across Türkiye. Through homogeneous convenience sampling, a population and
therefore sample were chosen that were similar in terms of one or more sociodemographic
features (the entire population is made up of white-collar employees, working at only
headquarter). As indicated by Jager et al. (2017), the goal was to limit the risk of sampling
bias by constraining the sample frame to reduce sociodemographic variability and make it
more comparable to the target population’s sociodemographic characteristics.
Out of the 300 surveys sent, 245 were returned (i.e. the response rate was 82%). Women
made up 45% of the participants (n = 111). The participants were 18 to 65 years old, with an
average age of 34.9 years (SD = 7.84). The average length of service at the company was 6.82
years (SD = 3.3), with 3.16 years spent working with current supervisors (i.e. dyadic
relations ranged from 2 to 22 years). Approximately 32% of the participants reported to a Work with
women manager (n = 78). women
manager
Measures
Ambivalent sexism inventory: Ambivalent sexism was examined using a 22-item scale
developed by Glick and Fiske (1996) and then adapted to the Turkish setting by Sakalli-Ugurlu
(2002). The scale measures two subdimensions of sexism with 11 items each. Example items for
hostile and benevolent sexism are “Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for
them” and “Women should be cherished and protected by men,” respectively. Participants
indicated their agreement with the scale items (ranging from 1: strongly disagree to 6: strongly
agree). The internal consistencies for hostile and benevolent sexism were found to be
satisfactory (Cronbach’s a = 0.87 and 0.82 for hostile and benevolent sexism, respectively).
Perceived gender equality in the organization: Perceived gender equality in organizational
settings was measured with an 11-item scale developed by Tominc et al. (2017). The scale
intends to measure the perceptions of organizational climate regarding gender equality with
response choices ranging from 1: strongly disagree to 6: strongly agree. A sample item was
“I believe that I have the same opportunities to be in the managerial position as the opposite
gender.” The researchers translated the scale’s instructions, items and response structure
into Turkish using the back-translation technique. The internal reliability of the items was
found to be 0.87.
The desire to work with same-sex managers: The participants were presented with two
scenarios. Both scenarios indicated the appointment of a new manager who had graduated from
a well-known university and had sufficient tenure and competency for holding the managerial
position. While portraying that the manager was qualified, the new manager was introduced as
Ms. X in the first scenario and Mr. X in the second. The same wording was used in both
scenarios except for the gender of the managers. After presenting each scenario, the participants
were asked to indicate their desire for working with the manager described in the respective
scenarios. Miman and Kucuk’s (2015) ten-item scale was used to measure the desire to work with
a particular manager. Because the scale is developed in Turkish, no translation was made.
Example items were “I would be more motivated if I work with Ms. X or Mr. X”; “I would be
more successful if I work with Ms. X or Mr. X.” Similar to other scales, the participants indicated
their agreement with the five-point agreement scale and high scores indicated their preference
for working with same-sex and opposite-sex managers. If the participant was a female, the
responses given after reading the first scenario reflected her desire/undesire for working with a
same-sex manager. Meanwhile, if the participant was male, the responses given after reading the
first scenario reflected his desire/undesire for working with the opposite-sex manager. To
control the plausible effect of the scenario order, two different versions of the questionnaire
package were prepared in which the order of the first and second scenarios was changed. The
analysis revealed that the order of the scenarios did not have a significant confounding effect on
the results.

Results
Results of preliminary analysis
Visual analysis of the data revealed no evidence of data entry errors or implausible values for
any variable. Based on the distributions of the items, no outliers or extreme values were
observed. Following the data check, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were carried
out to determine that the scale item loadings corresponded to the hypothesized factor structure
of each variable. In the first CFA, 11 items were hypothesized to load satisfactorily on hostile
and benevolent sexism subdimensions, respectively. Although initial tests provided an
GM acceptable level of fit to the data, the modification indices indicated that the measurement
model may be improved further. When five error terms of items measuring the same
subdimension were allowed to covary, the model provided acceptable fit (x2/df = 1.9; CFI =
89.6; RMSEA = 0.06; GFI = 87.8). All the items were found to be significantly associated with
the benevolent and hostile sexism constructs.
The second CFA was conducted for items measuring the desire for working with
opposite-sex and same-sex managers. Accordingly, ten items were hypothesized to measure
a single factor, which reflected participants’ desire for a same-sex or opposite-sex manager
depending on their gender. CFA was conducted separately for each scenario. In the first
scenario, the model fit was not found to be satisfactory (x2/df = 8.6; CFI = 83.54; GFI = 79.01;
RMSEA = 0.07). When six error covariances were freed based on the suggestion of
modification indices, the model improved substantially and provided a good fit to the data
(x2/df = 3.36; GFI = 92.74; CFI = 95.79; RMSEA = 0.05). All the items were found to be
significantly associated with the hypothesized construct. When the same analysis was
conducted for Scenario 2, initial results provided unacceptable levels of data fit (x2/df = 9.8;
CFI = 82.14; GFI = 75.45; RMSEA = 0.19). Similar to the first scenario, when the error
covariance of the items was allowed to free, the fit indices indicated the existence of good-
model fit (x2/df = 2.48, GFI = 92.65, CFI = 96.0; RMSEA = 0.06). Because all items were
found to have a significant relationship with the construct, it was decided to use those items
for measuring the desire for having a male manager.
Principle component analysis was conducted to determine the factor structure of the
perceived gender equality scale. Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin test (KMO = 0.84) and Barlett Test of
Sphericity (Barlett test = 0.847, p < 0.05) indicated the factorability of the data. The analysis
provided evidence for a one-factor structure. However, three items had low factor loadings.
After the elimination of these items, explained variance increased from 41% to 55%.
Composite scores for benevolent sexism (11-items), hostile sexism (11-items), perceived
gender equality (8-items) and desire for working with the male manager (10-items) and
women manager (10-items) were calculated by taking the average of the items measuring
the relevant construct. As illustrated in Table 1, being two distinct, yet related dimensions of
sexism, hostile and benevolent sexism were found to have moderate to high positive
correlation (r = 0.56; p < 0.05). Perceived gender equality in the organization and benevolent
sexism were positively, yet weakly associated with the desire for working with women
managers. Remarkably, hostile sexism was not found to be associated with the desire for
working with either male or female managers.

Main effects of sexism and perceived gender equality within organizations

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted separately for male and female participants to
determine whether hostile and benevolent sexism negatively predicts the desire for working
with women managers (H1a and H1b). In all the analyses, the demographic and working status
variables (i.e. years of working with the current manager, manager’s gender, total tenure and
tenure at the organization) were controlled to eliminate their plausible confounding effects. In
the first analysis, only women participants were selected. As seen from Table 2, the first step in
which the effects of demographic variables were tested was found to be insignificant (R2 = 0.05;
F (4,100) = 1.23, p > 0.05). When hostile and benevolent sexism were added to the model, it was
again found to be insignificant (R2 = 0.08; DR2 = 0.03; F (6,98) = 1.34, p > 0.05). Contrary to the
expectations, hostile (b = 0.08, p > 0.05) and benevolent sexism (b = 0.16, p > 0.05) failed to
predict the desire for working with women managers for women participants. When the
same analysis was conducted for male participants, similar results were obtained. The first
(F (4,119) = 0.86, p > 0.05) and second step (F (6, 117) = 1.03, p > 0.05) of the regression model
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Age – – 1
2. Gender – – 0.14* 1
3. Education – – 0.25** 0.11 1
4. Manager’s gender – – 0.11 0.02 0.01 1
5. Tenure at the org. 6.87 6.77 0.67** 0.04 0.28** 0.09 1
6. Total tenure 11.7 8.30 0.87** 0.11 0.26** 0.04 0.75** 1
7. Years of w.w.man 3.16 2.97 0.30** 0.05 0.16* 0.11 0.41** 0.32** 1
8. H.S 3.38 0.96 0.11 0.43** 0.20** 0.05 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.87
9. B.S. 3.58 0.93 0.14* 0.36** 0.28** 0.02 0.14* 0.10 0.06 0.56** 0.82
10. Desire for working w.m.m 3.60 0.75 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.93
11. Desire for working w.w.m 3.67 0.73 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.11 0.13* 0.75** 0.92
12. Perceived gender equality 5.22 1.14 0.06 0.08 0.04 007 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.13* 0.87

Notes: Years of w.w.man: years of working with current manager; H.S: hostile sexism; B.S: benevolent sexism; desire for working w.m.m: desire for working with
male manager; desire for working w.w.m: desire for working with women manager. Numbers in italic represent Cronbach alpha’s values

Descriptive statistics
Table 1.
women
manager
Work with
GM was found to be insignificant. As in female participants, for males, the hostile (b = 0.12, p >
0.05) and benevolent sexism (b = 0.13, p > 0.05) tendencies could not predict the desire for
working with women managers. Considering the results obtained from both male and female
participants, H1a and H1b were rejected.
To test H2, perceived gender equality in organizational culture was recoded using a
median split. Participants with scores below the median value were supposed to perceive less
gender equality within the company, while those with scores above the median value were
believed to perceive greater gender equality. The second hypothesis was tested three times:
for all participants, female and male participants, respectively. For all the participants,
independent t-test results indicated the existence of significant relationship (t (243) = 2.244,
p < 0.005). Accordingly, the participants perceiving their organization as more equitable in
terms of gender matters were found to have a greater preference for working with women
managers (M = 3.72, SD = 0.70) as opposed to participants perceiving their organization as
less equitable (M = 3.50, SD = 0.79). When the same analysis was conducted only for male
participants, similar results were obtained. Accordingly, when male participants regard their
organization as more equitable in terms of gender issues, they indicated a high desire for
working with women managers (M = 3.74, SD = 0.74) as opposed to male managers
perceiving less gender equality in their organizations (M = 3.33, SD = 0.81; t (129) = 3.084;
p < 0.05). As for female participants, perceived gender equality was not found to affect desire
for working with same-sex (i.e. women) managers (t (109) = 0.102; p > 0.05). The preference
for working with women managers does not seem to differ for women participants
perceiving more (M = 3.70, SD = 0.61) and less gender equality (M = 3.68, SD = 0.78) within
organizations. Based on these results, H2 was partially supported.

Moderating role of perceived gender equality

The moderating role of perceived gender equality was tested through Process Macro (Hayes,
2017) for female and male participants independently. In all moderation tests, the effects of
demographic and working status variables (i.e. years of working with the current manager,
education, manager’s gender, total tenure and tenure at the organization) were controlled.
When testing H3a, the desire for working with women managers and hostile sexism were
treated as dependent and independent variables, respectively, while perceived gender equality
within the organization was considered as a moderating variable. As demonstrated in Table 3,
for women participants, neither the main effects of hostile sexism (b = 0.05; p > 0.05) and

Women participants Men participants

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Intercept 3.93 (0.40) 3.54 (0.40) 3.52 (0.31) 3.43 (0.50)

Years with current manager 0.04 (0.02) 0.04 (0.02) 0.02 (0.03) 0.02 (0.03)
Manager’s gender 0.05 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) 0.02 (0.16) 0.01 (0.16)
Tenure at organization (in years) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.03 (0.02) 0.03 (0.02)
Total tenure (in years) 0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.02) 0.02 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)
Table 2. HS 0.08 (0.11) 0.12 (0.08)
Hierarchical BS 0.16 (0.09) 0.13 (0.10)
R2 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.08
regression analysis
DR2 0.03 0.02
of desire for working
with women Notes: N = 109 for women participants; N = 129 for men participants. Manager’s gender: 1 = women;
managers 2 = men. Table entries represent unstandardized parameter estimates with standard errors in parentheses
perceived gender equality (b = 0.06; p > 0.05), nor their interaction effects (b = 0.02; p > 0.05) Work with
were found to be significant. When the same analysis was applied to male participants, the women
model turned out to be significant (R2 = 0.08, F (7,116) = 3.19, p < 0.05), and perceived gender
manager
equality in the organization positively predicted the desire for working with women managers
(b = 0.19, p < 0.005). However, the moderating effect was found to be insignificant (b = 0.02,
p > 0.05). H3a was unsupported for both male and female participants.
When testing H3b, benevolent sexism was treated as the independent variable. As illustrated
in Table 4, neither the main effects of benevolent sexism and perceived gender equality nor their
interaction effects were found to be significant for the female sample. As for male participants, the
same moderation model turned out to be significant (R2 = 0.10, F (7,116) = 3.74, p < 0.05).
Although the main effect of perceived gender equality in the organization was found to be
significant (b = 0.16, p < 0.05), the interaction effect was again found to be insignificant (b =
0.11, p > 0.05), rendering H3b unsupported for both male and female participants.

Desire for working with male or female managers

An independent t-test was conducted separately for female and male participants to
compare their preference for working with the same sex as opposed to opposite-sex
managers. Women participants’ desire for working with a same-sex manager (M = 3.68,

Women participants Men participants

Variables b SE t p LLCI ULCI b SE t p LLCI ULCI

Intercept 3.71 0.26 14.46 0.00 3.21 4.23 3.54 0.31 11.60 0.00 2.94 4.15
Yrs w.c. man 0.04 0.02 1.71 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.36 0.72 0.05 0.07
Manager’s gender 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.89 0.28 0.32 0.03 0.16 0.17 0.86 0.34 0.29
Tenure at org. 0.02 0.02 0.85 0.40 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 1.63 0.10 0.05 0.01
(in years)
Total tenure 0.02 0.02 0.97 0.33 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.01 1.32 0.19 0.01 0.04 Table 3.
(in years) Moderation effect of
HS 0.05 0.09 0.53 0.60 0.14 0.23 0.05 0.08 0.62 0.53 0.20 0.10 PGE on the
PGE 0.06 0.06 1.02 0.31 0.17 0.05 0.19* 0.07 2.58 0.01* 0.04 0.34
relationship between
HS*PGE 0.02 0.08 0.30 0.77 0.13 0.18 0.02 0.07 0.33 0.75 0.11 0.15
HS and desire for
Notes: N = 109 for women participants; N = 129 for men participants. Manager’s gender: 1 = women; 2 = men. working with women
Table entries represent unstandardized parameter estimates with standard errors in parentheses managers

Women participants Men participants

Variables b SE t p LLCI ULCI b SE t p LLCI ULCI

Intercept 3.72 0.26 14.54 0.00 3.21 4.23 3.58 0.30 11.79 0.00 2.94 4.13
Yrs w.c. man 0.04 0.02 1.76 0.08 0.08 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.46 0.65 0.05 0.07
Manager’s gender 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.86 0.27 0.32 0.01 0.15 0.01 0.99 0.31 0.31
Tenure at org. 0.02 0.02 0.92 0.36 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 1.66 0.10 0.05 0.01 Table 4.
Total tenure 0.01 0.02 0.92 0.36 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 1.17 0.24 0.01 0.03Moderation effect of
BS 0.12 0.08 1.59 0.11 0.03 0.27 0.06 0.09 0.68 0.50 0.12 0.24 PGE on the
PGE 0.05 0.06 0.84 0.40 0.16 0.06 0.16* 0.08 1.99 0.04 0.01 0.31
relationship between
BS*PGE 0.04 0.06 0.71 0.48 0.16 0.08 0.11 0.08 1.35 0.18 0.28 0.05
BS and desire for
Notes: N = 109 for women participants; N = 129 for men participants. Manager’s gender: 1 = women; 2 = men. working with women
Table entries represent unstandardized parameter estimates with standard errors in parentheses managers
GM SD = 0.68) seems to be stronger compared to their preference for working with opposite-sex
(i.e. male) manager (M = 3.60, SD = 0.73). The mean difference concerning managerial choice
was found to be significant (t (110) = 2.19, p < 0.05). Preference for a same-sex manager
seems to be valid for male participants. Male participants seemed to have stronger
preference for working with male managers (M = 3.72, SD = 0.73) as opposed to working
female managers (M = 3.53, SD = 0.8); t (130) = 3.77, p < 0.05).
In summary, the findings indicated that both hostile and benevolent sexism had no
discernible effect on the desire to work with female managers. Although gender equality in
organizational culture had no significant moderating effect on the association between
hostile and benevolent sexism and the desire to work with women managers, it had a
relatively strong direct effect on male employees’ preference for working with female
managers. Additionally, regardless of their sexist attitudes or perceived organizational
culture, individuals reported a preference for working with same-sex managers.

Discussion
The present study aims to examine the relationship between ambivalent sexism and
managerial choice, considering organizational culture as a moderating variable. The study
also investigates employees’ preference for working with a same-sex manager as opposed to
an opposite sex-manager. Expanding on past research, this study gives a more
comprehensive picture of women’s advancement to managerial roles in the Turkish context
by incorporating individual and situational variables.
Contrary to our hypothesis (H1a), hostile sexism did not have any direct effect on
managerial choice. This finding contrasts with previous research (Glick and Fiske, 1996;
Masser and Abrams, 2004), and more specifically studies conducted in Türkiye (Sakalli-
Ugurlu and Beydogan, 2002; Sumer, 2006). This conflicting conclusion, however, can be
explained by the fact that a third of the participants (32%) work for a female manager in the
sample organization. This percentage is considered to be relatively high in comparison to
other Turkish organizations. Depending on Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis premise, it
can be argued that the participants in this study are accustomed to female managers in their
organizations. Most of the research has also confirmed that individuals who form
relationships with out-group members indicate more favorable evaluations regarding those
members (Zhou et al., 2019). Therefore, this direct contact can also affect the attitudes of
employees toward female managers. Similar to hostile sexism, benevolent sexism also has
no direct effect on the desire for working women managers (H1b). It is argued that although
hostile and benevolent sexism manifest themselves in different ways, they are both based on
the assumption that women are inferior to men (Helgesen and Johnson, 2010), and place
women in a disadvantaged position at work by creating barriers (Hindman and Walker,
2020). Supporting this, in this study, a moderate-to-high positive correlation between
benevolent and hostile sexism could also make the effect of benevolent sexism on
managerial choice insignificant.
Backing the second hypothesis, perceived gender equality within an organization is
found to significantly affect the preference for working with female managers. Consistent
with Bajdo and Dickson’s (2001) study findings, participants who perceive their
organization as more equitable in terms of gender issues were found to have a greater
preference for working with women managers as opposed to participants who perceived
their organization as less equitable. Although not hypothesized, when the effect of perceived
gender equality is analyzed for male and female employees separately, different results are
obtained. Effectively, while there is a significant relationship between perceived gender
equality and preference for working with female managers for male employees, no such
association was determined for female employees. This intriguing finding could be Work with
explained by the women’s internalization of male leadership culture (Helgesen and Johnson, women
2010). As a result, organizational culture may have no impact on female employees’ manager
manager
preferences because they believe the culture is already unequal.
Conversely, the significant results for males imply that, when male employees perceive
gender equality within an organization, they are expected to behave equally and would
prefer to work with a female manager. Male employees, on the other hand, prefer to work
with a male rather than a female manager when the organizational culture is perceived as
unequal. This result demonstrates the importance of organizational culture. Women
managers are more likely to be accepted as tokens as a result of limited contact with women
managers due to gender inequality in the culture, which leads to increased resistance and
stereotypical appraisals. Nonetheless, Holgersson and Romani (2020) offered a recent case
study in a male-dominated organization, emphasizing the importance of culture in resisting
gendering and modifying token women’s experiences. When men work in organizations
with low gender equality, female employees appear to be treated as tokens. This could have
a negative impact on male employees’ desire to work with female superiors. Thus, from the
post-structural feminist perspective, men’s reactions to women managers could be better
comprehended if the concept of power and language within the organization is examined in
detail.
Perceived equity in organizational culture does not have a moderating effect on the
relationship between hostile (H3a) and benevolent sexism (H3b) and the desire to work with
women managers. When the insignificant moderating role of organizational culture is
interpreted together with its main effect on managerial choice, one might claim that
perceived equality in organizational culture is more prominent than sexist attitudes in
predicting one’s desire for working with women managers. Although individuals have
sexist attitudes, they may not affect their desire for having women managers if the
organizational culture does not provide any base for inequality. Therefore, by creating equal
opportunities for men and women, organizational culture enables the premises of the contact
hypothesis to work and suppress the detrimental effects of sexist attitudes and tendencies.
In line with a previous study (Powell and Butterfield, 2015), there is still a preference for
working with same-sex managers, regardless of sexist beliefs or company culture.
According to the similarity attraction hypothesis (Byrne et al., 1986) and social identity
theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), same-sex preference might lead employees to perceive less
uncertainty about their own identities and experience more commonalities. Same-sex
preference could be considered a manifestation of sexism as well. Because males are more
represented in organizations compared to females, this same-sex preference could lead to a
vicious circle preventing women from accessing managerial positions. Therefore, women’s
preference for women managers will not be adequate for alleviating the adverse effects of
sexism.
Although the authors did not directly measure the impact of Turkish culture on
managerial choice, considering the characteristics of the work context, they could still make
inferences from findings regarding women’s positions in organizations. The insignificant
effect of sexism could be influenced by the modernization observed since the creation of the
Turkish Republic. It appears that modernization enables women to be promoted to
managerial positions (Kabasakal et al., 2016). Conversely, the participants’ same-sex
preference could be regarded as a sign of patriarchy and traditional values. From a macro
viewpoint, the influence of two opposing factors, namely traditional values and
modernization, may have a significant impact on the standing of women in management
GM roles. Therefore, we suggest researchers address the effect of the duality between modern
and traditional values in the Turkish context.
The findings may signal important implications for organizations, particularly regarding
the main effect of organizational culture. As indicated by Rutherford (2001), by
incorporating gender into the heart of organizational culture, managers and employees
could be made more aware of the cultural barriers marginalizing and excluding women. In
this respect, companies could initiate training, mentorship and networking programs to
create awareness about gender equality in the minds of both managers and employees
(Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2021). Given the importance of
networking on career outcomes, companies can promote ongoing networking for women
employees by holding networking events, paying for attendees’ travel expenses to
professional conferences and giving paid time for attendance (Offermann et al., 2020).
Moreover, organizations and state officials could encourage the use of gender-neutral and
inclusive language by removing gendered terms and using gender-neutral alternatives in
formal documents. Creating awareness about the language could prevent feelings of
exclusion for women and enable women’s attainment of managerial positions by increasing
their willingness to apply for those positions, especially in male-dominated occupations and
organizations.
Although the effects of sexism were found to be insignificant on managerial choice,
women continue to prefer women managers and men choose same-sex managers. As same-
sex preference can be regarded as sexism as well, managers should search for ways to
address this preference. Therefore, organizations should identify ways to prevent the
gender-based choice of managers and instead promote merit-based advancement.
Governments might create a social structure on a national scale that would give women and
men an equal proportion of paid and unpaid work and promote measures (i.e. affirmative
action programs and quotas) to support women in male-dominated industries. These cited
implications are believed to not only increase the proportion of women managers in gender-
imbalanced organizations but also protect the vested rights of women in gender-balanced
organizations.

Limitations and direction for future research

The first limitation stems from the study’s cross-sectional design, which prevents causal
inferences. Longitudinal data could help researchers better comprehend the causal
relationship between the variables under study, particularly how changes in organizational
cultures or sexist attitudes would affect women’s presence in managerial positions. Second,
although the opinions of the participants through valid and reliable scales, self-reporting is
questionable because employees’ ability to examine their sexist beliefs and company culture
may be tainted by a variety of confounding variables. Therefore, using a mixed-method
design could enable more comprehensive results. Moreover, as women’s accession to a
managerial position is a value-laden and multi-faceted issue, future studies could use
qualitative research to analyze attitudes toward women managers more deeply. More
specifically, making interviews with employees and their managers could provide more
inclusive data about the attitudes toward female managers.
Although using homogenous convenience sampling as opposed to a conventional
convenience sample might have reduced the sampling risks (if not eliminated), the use of
homogenous convenience sampling could still result in a generalizability problem. That is,
the sample estimates may not reflect true effects among the study population because the
sample may not be representative of the entire population and fails to account for sub-
population differences (Jager et al., 2017). It is also noteworthy to mention that the study
sample included employees working at a large-sized holding company, which offers Work with
employment opportunities to females and has institutionalized HR practices. Because 33% women
of the participants in the study already work with a female manager in the organization, the
responses might have reflected their unique experience and shaped their attitude toward
manager
women managers accordingly. Therefore, future studies might gather data from small-sized
or family organizations, which do not have HR policies and orientation toward increasing
female employment to increase the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion
The present findings go beyond previous evidence of sexism and organizational culture by
examining the joint effect of these variables on managerial choice. In sum, although the
main effect of sexism and the moderating effect of organizational culture were expected to
be significant, only the main effect of organizational culture on managerial choice was found
to be more prominent. Therefore, this finding reveals the importance of establishing
organizational cultures acknowledging gender equality.

References
Abadi, M., Dirani, K.M. and Rezaei, F.D. (2022), “Women in leadership: a systematic literature review of
Middle Eastern women managers’ careers from NHRD and institutional theory perspectives”,
Human Resource Development International, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 19-39.
Acar, F.P. and Sumer, H.C. (2018), “Another test of gender differences in assignments to precarious
leadership positions: examining the moderating role of ambivalent sexism”, Applied Psychology,
Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 498-522.
Akarsu, A.S. and Sakallı, N. (2021), “The associations among self-silencing, ambivalent sexism, and
perceived devaluation of women in Turkey”, Current Psychology, pp. 1-13.
Allport, G.W. (1954), The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Al-Mutawa, R. (2020), “I Want to be a Leader, But Men Are Better Than Women in Leadership
Positions”: state feminism and legitimizing myths in the United Arab Emirates”, Hawwa,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 31-50.
Bajdo, L.M. and Dickson, M.W. (2001), “Perceptions of organizational culture and women’s
advancement in organizations: a cross-cultural examination”, Sex Roles, Vol. 45 No. 5/6,
pp. 399-414.
Brown, C.S. and Stone, E. (2016), “Gender stereotypes and discrimination: how sexism impacts
development”, in Horn, S., Ruck, M. and Liben, L. (Eds), Equity and justice in developmental
science: Theoretical and methodological issues, Vol. 50, pp. 105-133.
Byrne, D., Clore, G.L. and Smeaton, G. (1986), “The attraction hypothesis: do similar attitudes affect
anything?”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1167-1170.
Cabeza-García, L., Del Brio, E.B. and Rueda, C. (2019), “Legal and cultural factors as catalysts for
promoting women in the boardroom”, BRQ Business Research Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 56-67.
Catalyst (2020). “Women in management: quick take”, available at: www.catalyst.org/research/women-
inmanagement/#::text=In%202019%2C%20the%20proportion%20of,this%20percentage%
20remains%20the%20same.&text=Eighty%2Dseven%20percent%20of%20global,senior%
20management%20role%20in%202020 (accessed 14 May 2021).
Chen, Z., Fiske, S.T. and Lee, T.L. (2009), “Ambivalent sexism and power-related gender-role ideology
in marriage”, Sex Roles, Vol. 60 No. 11, pp. 765-778.
Cheng, P., Shen, W. and Kim, K.Y. (2020), “Personal endorsement of ambivalent sexism and career
success: an investigation of differential mechanisms”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 35 No 6, pp. 783-798.
GM Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale,
NJ.
Eagly, A.H. and Carli, L.L. (2007), Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become
Leaders. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA.
Foley, S., Linnehan, F., Greenhaus, J.H. and Weer, C.H. (2006), “The impact of gender similarity, racial
similarity, and work culture on family-supportive supervision”, Group & Organization
Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 420-441.
Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (1996), “The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and
benevolent sexism”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 491-512.
Glick, P., Fiske, S.T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Maser, B. and Adetoun, B. (2000), “Beyond
prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 5, pp. 763-775.
Glick, P., Sakallı-Ugurlu, N., Akbas, G., Metin-Orta, I. and Ceylan, S. (2016), “Why do women endorse
honor beliefs? Ambivalent sexism and religiosity as predictors”, Sex Roles, Vol. 75 No. 11/12,
pp. 543-554.
Good, J.J. and Rudman, L.A. (2010), “When female applicants meet sexist interviewers: the costs of
being a target of benevolent sexism”, Sex Roles, Vol. 62, pp. 481-493.
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford publications, New York, NY.
Helgesen, S. and Johnson, J. (2010). “The female vision: women’s real power at work”, Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
Hideg, I., & Ferris, D.L. (2016), “The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and
undermines gender equality in the workplace”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 111
No. 5, pp. 706-727.
Hideg, I. and Shen, W. (2019), “Why still so few? A theoretical model of the role of benevolent sexism
and career support in the continued underrepresentation of women in leadership positions”,
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 287-303.
Hindman, L.C. and Walker, N.A. (2020), “Sexism in professional sports: how women managers
experience and survive sport organizational culture”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Holgersson, C. and Romani, L. (2020), “Tokenism revisited: when organizational culture challenges
masculine norms, the experience of token is transformed”, European Management Review,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 649-661.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. and Gupta, V. (Eds) (2004), Culture, Leadership,
and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Itzin, C. (1995), “The gender culture in organizations”, Itzin, C. and Newman, J. (Eds), Gender, Culture,
and Organizational Change: Putting Theory into Practice, Psychology Press, New York,
pp. 30-53.
Jager, J., Putnick, D.L. and Bornstein, M.H. (2017), “II. More than just convenient: the scientific merits of
homogeneous convenience sample”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Vol. 82. No. 2, pp. 13-30.
Kabasakal, H., Karakas, F., Maden, C. and Aycan, Z. (2016), “Women in management in Turkey”, in
Ronald J. B and Richardsen, A.M. (Eds), Women in Management Worldwide: Signs of progress,
Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London, pp. 226-246.
King, E.B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M.R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J.F. and Perkins, A. (2012), “Benevolent
sexism at work: gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental
experiences”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38. No. 6, pp. 1835-1866.
Koca, C., Arslan, B. and Asci, F.H. (2011), “Attitudes towards women’s work roles and women Work with
managers in a sports organization: the case of Turkey”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 18
No. 6, pp. 592-612.
women
Masser, B.M. and Abrams, D. (2004), “Reinforcing the glass ceiling: the consequences of hostile sexism
manager
for female managerial candidates”, Sex Roles, Vol. 51 No. 9/10, pp. 609-615.
Metcalfe, B.D. (2008), “A feminist poststructuralist analysis of HRD: why bodies, power and reflexivity
matter”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 447-463.
Miman, M. and Kucuk, L. (2015), “Çalıs ma Yasamında Cinsiyetçilik Ölçekleri Gelis tirme Ve Toros
Üniversitesi’nde Bir Uygulama”. Toros Üniversitesi İisbf Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 117-137.
Mumby, D.K. (1996), “Feminism, postmodernism, and organizational communication studies: a critical
reading”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 259-295.
Offermann, L.R., Thomas, K.R., Lanzo, L.A. and Smith, L.N. (2020), “Achieving leadership and
success: a 28-year follow-up of college women leaders”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 31
No. 4, p. 101345.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2021), “Policies and practices to
promote women in leadership roles in the private sector”, available at: www.oecd.org/corporate/
OECD-G20-EMPOWER-Women-Leadership.pdf (accessed 21 June 2021).
Özdemir, F., & Sakallı, N. (2022), How does culture relate to benevolent and hostile sexism? in Çakal, H.
and Shenel H. (Eds), Examining Complex Intergroup Relations, Routledge Taylor and Francis
Group, London, pp. 67-83.
Paris, L.D., Howell, J.P., Dorfman, P.W. and Hanges, P.J. (2009), “Preferred leadership prototypes of
male and female leaders in 27 countries”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40 No. 8,
pp. 1396-1405.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (2015), “The glass ceiling: what have we learned 20 years on?”,
Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 306-326.
Ratliff, K.A., Redford, L., Conway, J. and Smith, C.T. (2019), “Engendering support: hostile sexism
predicts voting for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election”,
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 578-593.
Ruijten, P.A.M. (2021), “The similarity-attraction paradigm in persuasive technology: effects of system
and user personality on evaluations and persuasiveness of an interactive system”, Behaviour &
Information Technology, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 734-746.
Rutherford, S. (2001), “Any difference? An analysis of gender and divisional management styles in a
large airline”, Gender, Work & Organization, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 326-345.
Sakalli-Ugurlu, N. (2002), “Ambivalent sexism inventory: a study of reliability and validity”, Türk
Psikoloji Dergisi, Vol. 17, pp. 47-61.
Sakalli-Ugurlu, N. and Beydogan, B. (2002), “Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women
managers: the effects of patriarchy, sexism, and gender differences”, Journal of Psychology,
Vol. 136 No. 6, pp. 647-656.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design”. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
Salvaggio, A.N., Streich, M. and Hopper, J.E. (2009), “Ambivalent sexism and applicant evaluations:
effects on ambiguous applicants”, Sex Roles, Vol. 61 No. 9/10, pp. 621-633.
Schein, E.H. (1991), What is Culture?, Sage, Newbury Park, California, CA.
Stoker, J.I., Van der Velde, M. and Lammers, J. (2012), “Factors relating to managerial stereotypes: the
role of gender of the employee and the manager and management gender ratio”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 31-42.
Sumer, H.C. (2006), “Women in management: still waiting to be full members of the club”, Sex Roles,
Vol. 55, pp. 63-72.
GM Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, in Austin, W.G. and
Worchel, S. (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Brooks/Cole, Monterey,
California, CA, pp. 33-47.
Tekkas, K.K., Beser, A. and Park, S. (2020), “Ambivalent sexism of nursing students in Turkey and
South Korea: a cross-cultural comparison study, Nursing & Health Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 3,
pp. 612-619.
Thornton, G. (2020), “Women in Business 2020: putting the blueprint into action”, available at: www.
grantthornton.global/en/insights/women-in-business-2020/women-in-business-2020-report/ (accessed
20 June, 2021).
Tominc, P., Šebjan, U. and Širec, K. (2017), “Perceived gender equality in managerial positions in
organizations”, Organizacija, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 132-149.
Zhou, S., Page-Gould, E., Aron, A., Moyer, A. and Hewstone, M. (2019). “The extended contact
hypothesis: a meta-analysis on 20 years of research”, Personality and Social Psychology Review,
Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 132-160.

Corresponding author
Ozge Tayfur Ekmekci can be contacted at: otayfur@hacettepe.edu.tr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com