Introduction to the Special Issue on Diversity and
Leadership
Jean Lau Chin
Theories of leadership have neglected diversity issues. As
the population within the United States and in countries
throughout the world becomes increasingly diverse, the
contexts in which leadership occurs within institutions and
communities will also become increasingly diverse. Atten-
tion to diversity is not simply about representation of
leaders from diverse groups in the ranks of leadership.
Attention to diversity means paradigm shifts in our theories
of leadership so as to make them inclusive; it means in-
corporating explanations of how dimensions of diversity
shape our understanding of leadership. It means paying
attention to the perceptions and expectations of diverse
leaders by diverse followers and to how bias influences the
exercise of leadership. Although leadership theories have
evolved and reflect changing social contexts, they remain
silent on issues of equity, diversity, and social justice.
Theories of leadership need to be expanded to incorporate
diversity if they are to be relevant for the 21st century
amidst new social contexts, emerging global concerns, and
changing population demographics.
Keywords: bias, culture, diversity, leadership, social justice
T
he social justice movements of the 20th century
(e.g., the women’s, civil rights, and gay pride move-
ments) ushered in a commitment to diversity in our
nation’s institutions and communities. Scholars of psychol-
ogy began to incorporate dimensions of diversity in their
research methodology and in their theories of human be-
havior. Yet the literature on leadership has generally not
incorporated such issues. This was reflected in the January
2007 special issue of the American Psychologist on lead-
ership, which focused on traditional paradigms of leader-
ship that highlighted traits, situations, and systems. The
authors were silent on issues of women, racial and ethnic
minority groups, and multiculturalism as they intersect
with the exercise of leadership.
Leadership textbooks typically cover different theo-
ries of leadership, presuming their universal relevance
across populations, subgroups, and cultures; a search of
books on leadership yielded 2,207 citations, and only 200
included attention to culture. Some books devote one or
two chapters to women or culture, allowing the remainder
of the chapters to ignore diversity (e.g., Antonakis, Cian-
ciolo, & Sternberg, 2004; Bass, 1994; Northouse, 2004).
This approach treats women and minorities as special pop-
ulations and culture as what others have, which suggests an
ethnocentric view of leadership as something held by the
150
Adelphi University
elite or mainstream group. Attention to diversity is often
confined to issues of access or to counting the number of
women or members of racial and ethnic minority groups in
leadership positions (Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 2006).
Leadership theories have generally maintained a
North American bias (Den Hartog & Dickson, 2004); par-
adigms of leadership that inform management policies,
practices, and decisions have generally reflected the struc-
tures and cultures of North American organizations run by
White, heterosexual men. The introduction of culture into
our understanding of leadership has been defined to mean
organizational culture (Schein, 2004). Although theorists
have increasingly incorporated national or ethnic culture
into our understanding of leadership (Bjerke, 1999; Hof-
stede, 2001; House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta,
2004; Kao, Sinha, & Wilpert, 1999), many studies start
from an ethnocentric vantage point of comparing manage-
ment and the exercise of leadership in “foreign” countries
with that of U.S.-based models of leadership (Bess, 1995).
This approach was evident in the plethora of studies on
Japanese and other Asian management styles because they
were different from “traditional” leadership theories (Chen,
1995). Others have examined U.S. management in multi-
national corporations outside the United States (Puffer,
2004; Sutter, 2009).
Scholars have demonstrated the existence of gender
bias in access to leadership roles (Heilman, 2001; Keller-
man, 2004; Moore, 1986); Eagly and Carli (2007) de-
scribed the challenges faced by women in their paths to
leadership as a labyrinth. These scholars have all suggested
that gender is important to our understanding of leadership
and have proposed models of gender and leadership that
include androgyny theory (Bem, 1974), social role theory
(Eagly, 1987), expectation states theory (Berger, Wagner,
& Zelditch, 1985), and status characteristics theory (Ridge-
way, 1992). Yet, these models have not been incorporated
into major theories of leadership.
Why Incorporate Diversity Into
Leadership Theories?
As the population within the United States and in countries
throughout the world becomes increasingly diverse, the
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jean Lau
Chin, Derner Institute for Advanced Psychological Studies, Adelphi Uni-
versity, 158 Cambridge Avenue, Garden City, NY 11530. E-mail:
chin@adelphi.edu
April 2010 ● American Psychologist
© 2010 American Psychological Association 0003-066X/10/$12.00
Vol. 65, No. 3, 150 –156 DOI: 10.1037/a0018716

Jean Lau
Chin
contexts in which leadership occurs within institutions and
communities will also become increasingly heterogeneous.
Leadership theories need to be inclusive and incorporate
explanations of how dimensions of diversity shape our
understanding of leadership. Yet our leadership theories
have been silent on how the diversity of leaders and fol-
lowers within organizations influences the enactment of
leadership. Until recently, leaders in the United States and
around the world have mirrored the dominant majorities of
their societies. In the United States, they have typically
been White, heterosexual, Protestant males, creating an
image of gender, racial, and ethnic homogeneity that has
been used to define society’s elite groups. Zweigenhaft and
Domhoff (2006) demonstrated that even as more women
and minorities enter leadership positions, the power elite in
the United States, that is, those who own and manage our
corporations, finance the political campaigns, and serve in
government as appointed legislative and military leaders,
still remain quite homogeneous. In spite of this increased
diversity among our leaders, the most important factors in
making it to the top continue to be having high social and
economic origins and coming from a small set of elite
schools. Moreover, as newcomers to the power elite, lead-
ers from diverse groups generally found ways to signal that
they were “willing to join the game as it has always been
played” by reducing visible signs of their racial and ethnic
origins (Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 2006, p. 7); this identity
management serves not to threaten the status quo.
Diversity in Our Ranks of Leadership
Although women and members of non-White racial and
ethnic groups have been gaining access to leadership roles
in the last couple of decades, they remain underrepresented
relative to their numbers in the population; the glass ceiling
April 2010 ● American Psychologist
is still a barrier to jobs in middle and upper management for
women and members of racial and ethnic minority groups
(U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission, 1995). The larg-
est gains have been made by women and Blacks. Women
now comprise 46% of the U.S. labor force (U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 2007). Using the number of CEOs and
corporate directorships on Fortune 500 companies as a
measure, Zweigenhaft and Domhoff (2006) reported a
steady increase in the number of women and members of
non-White racial and ethnic groups becoming part of the
power elite. The number of Fortune 500 companies having
at least one woman holding a corporate directorship grew
from 0.16% in 1978 to 89.2% in 2003; however, only 7.9%
of those holding the top title in these companies were
women. Racial and ethnic minorities are expected to be-
come 50% of the U.S. population by 2050 (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010). Data on their numbers in the power elite are
more complex because they are not regularly or consis-
tently collected. In 2004, 8.1% of board seats on Fortune
500 companies were held by Blacks, although this could
have meant that a company had more than one Black
person holding a seat or that a single individual was hold-
ing more than one seat in different companies. In 2001,
there were 7 Black CEOs of Fortune 1000 companies, all of
them men. In 2005, the number of Hispanic directors on
Fortune 500 boards was 69, or 1.4%; there were 6 Latino
CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, all of them men. For
Asians, 96 men and women held 127 seats at S&P 1500
companies, representing less than 1% of the total. Despite
their ostensibly higher levels of education and success,
Asians accounted for less than 1% of the total number of
executives, officers, and directors listed by Standard &
Poor’s during 2004. Asians in CEO positions were primar-
ily ones who started their own companies, such as Jerry
Yang of Yahoo or Charles Wang of Computer Associates.
Capturing the representation of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgendered (LGBT) individuals in leadership posi-
tions is difficult. Many LGBT individuals are now open
about their sexual orientations and willing to be more
visible, as evidenced by the Gay and Lesbian Leadership
Institute (n.d.), which publicly documents gay and lesbian
leaders. Data for persons with disabilities are equally dif-
ficult to obtain, although their continued advocacy for
accommodations that enable them to be fully participating
members of society will begin to change that. At Gallaudet
University (1997), the students successfully lobbied to
have university presidents appointed who were representa-
tive of their students, who are predominantly deaf and hard
of hearing.
Diversity within government is also low. The United
States has been slow to diversify the ranks of its political
leaders. In 2010, women hold 90 (16.8%) of 535 seats in
the 111th Congress: 73 women serve in the House of
Representatives of 435 members (16.8%), and 17 women
serve in the Senate (17%) (Center for American Women
and Politics, 2010), rates of representation far lower than
those in most industrialized nations (Inter-Parliamentary
Union, 2009). Racial and ethnic minorities remain thinly
represented as well, with 74 (17%) in the House and 6 (6%)
151
in the Senate. Until Barack Obama, all U.S. presidents and
vice presidents had been White men, in contrast to the
situation in many other nations that have elected women as
their national leaders. Currently in the 192 member coun-
tries of the United Nations, there are eight female presi-
dents, nine women prime ministers, and three reigning
queens, or 10.4% female heads of state in the world
(Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership, n.d.). The
question of racial and ethnic diversity is more difficult to
assess at a global level; it has not been a focus of attention
when a leader not representing the racial or ethnic majority
of a country ascends to a position of power.
Attention to diversity, however, should not be simply
about underrepresentation; it should not be limited to cat-
aloging the presence or absence of leaders from diverse
groups. Attention to diversity and leadership means ex-
panding the traditional leadership paradigms of traits, sit-
uations, and systems to include those of individuals from
diverse identity groups. It means examining what leaders
from such groups might bring to their styles of leadership
that might be different from those of majority group lead-
ers; it means examining the congruence between diverse
individuals’ perceptions and expectations regarding lead-
ership and those of more traditional leaders; it means
examining how the different cultural experiences of leaders
from diverse groups shape their exercise of leadership; it
means expanding the traits and contexts that might define
effective leadership. Most of all, it means examining how
our theories of leadership can address what constitutes
effective leadership in a changing, global, and diverse
society.
Diversity in Our Institutions
and Communities
Newsweek, with input from correspondents around the
world, put together a highly subjective list of the 50 most
powerful people in the world (“The New Global Elite,”
2008). “It is arbitrary, but the choices are well considered,
and each, we believe, represents a thread in the new global
tapestry,” wrote Newsweek editor Jon Meacham (2008, p.
2, para. 2). Included on this list were 25 (50%) Americans;
30 (60%) Whites; 8 (16%) women; and 21 (42%) non-
White and non-Western individuals, which included 2 Lati-
nos, 7 Asians, 3 Blacks, and 6 Arabs or Muslims. The
racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of this list reflects the
changing perceptions of those in leadership roles and po-
sitions of influence around the world. Our social contexts
have changed.
Not only are the population within the United States
and the populations of other nations throughout the world
becoming more diverse, but the growing influence of mul-
tinational corporations and a global workforce means that
leaders are interacting with heterogeneous groups and fol-
lowers representing different cultures and dimensions of
diversity. How does this interaction influence the enact-
ment of leadership? As studies of ethnic identity from the
diversity literature show, racial and ethnic groups often
develop and maintain unique identities distinct from the
152
national, mainstream, or organizational identity (Helms,
1993; Phinney, 1990). Moreover, positive ethnic identity is
correlated with high self-efficacy. Are diverse leaders with
strong, positive ethnic identities likely to be more effective,
or are they hindered because they are less willing to modify
their behavior to be more like those in leadership positions?
Research on identity has generally concentrated on
single dimensions of identity; we now know that individ-
uals often embrace multiple and intersecting dimensions of
identity related to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual
orientation, and disability (Chin, 2009; Chin & Sanchez-
Hucles, 2007; Comas-Diaz & Greene, 1994; Greene, 2007;
Jones & McEwen, 2000). If leader status is one dimension
of identity, how might identity associated with race, eth-
nicity, and gender intersect with identity as a leader?
The study of aversive racism demonstrates the exis-
tence of unconscious attitudes toward racial and ethnic
minorities that can bias behavior and perceptions (Hodson,
Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2004); how these biases influence
leadership behavior and appraisals of leadership perfor-
mance has yet to be studied. The election of Barack Obama
as president of the United States in 2008 demonstrated
these challenges to his leadership posed by his race. Al-
though Barack Obama did not run his campaign on the
basis of race, he was challenged early on in the campaign
to address it. His racial identity was challenged: Was he
Black enough for Blacks or too Black for Whites? As he
gained popularity during the campaign, doubts were cast
about his competence: Was he too inexperienced? Was he
simply a good orator with no substance? He was challenged
about his allegiance to the United States: Was he a Mus-
lim? Was he hanging out with terrorists? His affiliation
with the Black church was used to challenge his support for
White Americans. He was put to the test early on with the
racially inflammatory and polarizing sermon of his pastor,
Jeremiah Wright. His response (Obama, 2008) condemned
Wright’s behavior without condemning the man: “I could
no more disown my [Black] pastor than my white grand-
mother” (who had spoken to him of her fear of Black men
when walking on the streets at night). Although he is
biracial, he is described by the media as the first African
American to hold the nation’s highest office. On the basis
of their perceptions and expectations that a typical leader
for the American people should be a White man, the
American public continuously challenged Obama’s appro-
priateness to lead throughout the campaign.
The social context of the 21st century has changed.
We are now concerned with problems of global warming,
terrorism, world peace, and weapons of mass destruction,
compared with the Great Depression, the Cold War, the
nuclear threat, and the arms race of the previous century.
Political contexts are more complex than those defined by
earlier dichotomies of individualism versus collectivism,
democracy versus communism, and capitalism versus so-
cialism. The downturn in the U.S. economy brought on by
the subprime lending crisis in housing has had global
implications for leadership. The United States was once
called the most powerful nation in the world; this ascription
is now being challenged as other countries in the world can
April 2010 ● American Psychologist
claim great military and economic power as well. For
example, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China control
32% of the world’s oil production (Central Intelligence
Agency, 2008a), and China and India continue to be among
the most formidable manufacturers in the world, account-
ing for 42% of the world’s labor force (Central Intelligence
Agency, 2008b).
The changing social contexts now challenge past no-
tions of American homogeneity and U.S. ethnocentrism.
During the 20th century, global leadership was character-
ized by a conqueror-colonial mentality. Western countries
colonized the countries they conquered; their group became
the country’s new power elite. In the 21st century, this
colonial mentality has been challenged as third world coun-
tries demand their liberation and as productivity in under-
developed countries far outpaces that of advanced Western
nations. Multinational corporations are the new “conquer-
ors” as they gain strongholds throughout the world in the
global market. Global leaders of countries and corporations
will need new paradigms of leadership if they are to be
responsive to the diversity among their followers and
within their institutions. Management practices and orga-
nizational cultures will need to be redefined if followers are
to feel empowered and leaders are to be effective.
Expanding Our Theories of
Leadership to Incorporate Diversity
Diversity among our leaders and within our institutions
brings challenges and opportunities to the enactment of
leadership and our theories of leadership. As our society
has evolved, so have our definitions of leadership. Al-
though many definitions of leadership exist, virtually all
definitions identify the following components as central to
the phenomenon of leadership: Leadership is a process,
involves influence, occurs within a group context, and
involves goal attainment. Using these components, Nort-
house (2004, p. 3) defined leadership as “a process whereby
an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a
common goal.” Earlier definitions of leadership empha-
sized the command, power, and control aspects of leader-
ship (McClelland, 1975; Yukl, 1989), whereas contempo-
rary definitions of leadership redefine power in good
leadership as shared power (Bryson & Crosby, 1992;
Fisher, 1998), shared leadership (Moxley, 2000), and the
leader as servant (Greenleaf, 1977). Contemporary defini-
tions of leadership show a greater emphasis on engaging
the follower, as is evident in transformational leadership
(Bass & Avolio, 1994; Burns, 1978), charismatic leader-
ship (House, 1977), participative management (Vroom,
2003), and team leadership (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks,
2001); in all instances, the leader inspires and motivates
followers.
These changes in the definition of leadership parallel
and reflect changes in the social zeitgeist of our society.
Post–World War II reactions to the abuses of power in
leadership led to studies of autocratic versus democratic
leadership styles. Hierarchical structures of leadership
within religious and military institutions were challenged
April 2010 ● American Psychologist
during the 20th century as irrelevant to secular life and
gave way to the emphasis on empowerment and equity by
women, communities of color, and other diverse groups in
society. Fueled by the social justice movements of the
1960s, groups who felt marginalized by the emphasis on
homogeneity and excluded from the ranks of the privileged
elite began to call for different kinds of leadership.
Currently, our models of leadership derived from tra-
ditional paradigms have little to say about equity, social
justice, or diversity; they do not strive toward inclusiveness
or the removal of barriers. The study of cultural values
(Hofstede, 2001) and worldviews (Sowell, 1994; Sue,
1978), which identifies differences between cultures and
groups, can provide insight into the challenges leaders face
in these new and changing contexts. Schein (2004) argued
that culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin.
Leaders must first create cultures when they form groups
and organizations. Once these organizational cultures exist,
they determine the criteria for leadership and who will
become a leader. A leader is successful when he or she can
create an organizational culture responsive to the social
contexts expected by its followers, as illustrated in the
following examples. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd
president of the United States, displayed strong leadership
by promoting the New Deal, which provided the nation
with hope following the Great Depression. Dwight D.
Eisenhower, the 34th president, brought his prestige as the
commanding military general of the victorious forces in
Europe during World War II to his presidency, declaring
that “America is today the strongest, the most influential,
and most productive nation in the world” (Eisenhower,
1961, para. 7).
Leadership theorists are beginning to define criteria
for effective leadership in the 21st century, which includes
flexibility in thinking in response to a changing world. Rost
(1991, p. 102) contributed a postindustrial concept of lead-
ership for the 21st century, which he defined as “an influ-
ence relationship among leaders and followers who intend
real changes that reflect their mutual purposes.” This em-
phasis expanded the study of leadership traits to a focus on
the exchange that occurs between leaders and followers, as
in leader–member exchange theories (Graen & Uhl-Bien,
1995). A focus on teams—that is, on kinds of teams,
dynamics and processes of teams, and member diversity of
teams (Rodrigues, 2001)— has become more central to
leadership and management training.
To foreshadow how consideration of diversity might
challenge existing theories, researchers might scrutinize the
traits and behaviors that have been identified as correlated
with emergence as a leader and with leader effectiveness
(see Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002). Do these traits
and behaviors remain valid for women as well as men, for
individuals from racial, ethnic, and other minorities as well
as the majority, and for non-North American countries as
well as the United States? Although psychologists have not
adopted the blatant sexism of the great man theory of
leadership put forth a century ago by the historian Thomas
Carlyle (1841/1888), which suggested that heroes or great
men shape history through their personal attributes and
153
divine inspiration, the study of leadership traits and behav-
iors exhibited by traditional holders of power is limiting in
that it does not identify the potential for what diverse
leaders might bring to the table or the barriers they may
face.
In examining the contexts in which leadership is ex-
ercised, how might gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual
orientation alter the exercise of leadership and influence the
perceptions and expectations of the leader? For example,
might a woman president be less confrontational and ag-
gressive during times of crisis, or would she be more like
Margaret Thatcher, noted for her toughness? Did the fear
generated by the attacks of 9/11 (Silver, Holman, McIn-
tosh, Poulin, & Gil-Rivas, 2002) increase demands for
leaders to be highly authoritative and charismatic, as ar-
gued by Weber (1925/1968) and suggested by experiments
manipulating threat (Cohen, Solomon, Maxfield, Pyszczyn-
ski, & Greenberg, 2004)? Would bicultural individuals be
more flexible by virtue of their multiple perspectives
(LaFramboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1998) and therefore be
less polarizing in their exercise of leadership? Might the
emphasis placed on interpersonal relationships in collec-
tivistic cultures such as that of the Chinese (Gao, Ting-
Toomey, & Gudykunst, 1996) elicit different types of lead-
ership behavior than the emphasis placed on individualism
in the United States and other Western cultures?
The authors of this special issue on diversity and
leadership raise such questions and issues to challenge
researchers of leadership to incorporate diversity into our
understanding of leadership. Answering such questions
might enable psychologists to better predict who will dem-
onstrate successful and effective leadership of whom and in
what contexts. The authors pose models of leadership that
are more inclusive of the diversity of leaders and followers
and that expand the scope of existing paradigms of lead-
ership.
Ayman and Korabik (2010, this issue) incorporate
gender and culture into existing theories of leadership,
viewing these dimensions as the social context for the
interaction between leaders and their followers. They pro-
pose an integrative model of leadership that considers the
complexities and differences among cross-cultural and
cross-national groups. Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010,
this issue) examine the multiple and intersecting dimen-
sions of identity, including race and gender, and their
effects on leadership. They focus on the access issues that
women and racial minorities encounter in their quest for
positions of leadership and the barriers they face that are
associated with stereotyped evaluations of leader perfor-
mance and that influence leader effectiveness. Cheung and
Halpern (2010, this issue) examine the work–family inter-
face for women in top executive and professional roles in
China, Hong Kong, and the United States, an area of study
not typically addressed in traditional leadership paradigms.
They focus on the interplay of personal attributes, pro-
cesses, and environments as factors associated with suc-
cessful leadership. They propose an alternative model of
leadership that operates in the context of a “culture of
gender” that defines expectations for women leaders.
154
Pittinsky (2010, this issue) considers national diver-
sity as a fact and a frontier for organizational life. He
proposes a two-dimensional model of intergroup leadership
that involves bringing together not only individuals from
diverse identity groups but also the subgroups or commu-
nities to which they belong. The model underscores the
importance of maintaining people’s subgroup identities
while creating a superordinate group identity of “we,”
which he considers essential to an international perspective
in examining leadership. Fassinger, Shullman, and Steven-
son (2010, this issue) present an affirmative paradigm for
understanding the leadership of individuals belonging to
sexual minorities—that is, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender people. Eagly and Chin (2010, this issue) conclude
the issue with a call to join the two bodies of theory and
research on diversity and leadership to provide guidelines
for optimizing leadership in contemporary organizations
and nations. In addressing the issues of diversity and lead-
ership in a changing world, they pose questions to chal-
lenge researchers to expand the scope of their leadership
paradigms to be more inclusive.
REFERENCES
Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A. T., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) (2004). The
nature of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ayman, R., & Korabik, K. (2010). Leadership: Why gender and culture
matter. American Psychologist, 65, 157–170. doi:10.1037/a0018806
Bass, B. M. (1994). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership: Theory,
research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effective-
ness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 155–162. doi:10.1037/
h0036215
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1985). Introduction.
Expectation states theory: Review and assessment. In J. Berger & M.
Zelditch Jr. (Eds.), Status, rewards and influence: How expectations
organize behavior. (pp. 1–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bess, J. L. (1995). Creative R & D leadership: Insights from Japan.
Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Bjerke, B. (1999). Business leadership and culture: National management
styles in the global economy. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (1992). Leadership for the common good
(pp. 5–10). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership (p. 2). New York, NY: Harper Torch-
books.
Carlyle, T. (1888). On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history.
New York, NY: Fredrick A. Stokes & Brother. (Original work pub-
lished 1841)
Center for American Women and Politics. (2010). Fact sheet: Women in
elective office 2010. Retrieved from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/
fast_facts/levels_of_office/documents/elective.pdf
Central Intelligence Agency. (2008a). The 2008 world factbook: Country
comparison: Oil - production. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
Central Intelligence Agency. (2008b). The 2008 world factbook: Country
comparison: Labor force. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2095rank.html
Chen, M. (1995). Asian management systems: Chinese, Japanese, and
Korean styles of business. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cheung, F. M., & Halpern, D. F. (2010). Women at the top: Powerful
leaders define success as work ⫹ family in a culture of gender. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 65, 182–193. doi:10.1037/a0017309
Chin, J. L. (2009). Diversity in mind and in action. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Chin, J. L., Lott, B., Rice, J. K., & Sanchez-Hucles, J. (2007). Women and
April 2010 ● American Psychologist
 leadership: Transforming visions and diverse voices. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Chin, J. L., & Sanchez-Hucles, J. (2007). Diversity and leadership. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 62, 608 – 609. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.608
Cohen, D., Solomon, S., Maxfield, M., Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J.
(2004). Fatal attraction: The effects of mortality salience on evaluations
of charismatic, task-oriented, and relationship-oriented leaders. Psycho-
logical Science, 15, 846 – 851. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00765.x
Comas-Diaz, L., & Greene, B. (Eds.). (1994). Women of color: Integrat-
ing ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Den Hartog, D. N., & Dickson, W. (2004). Leadership and culture. In J.
Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of
leadership (pp. 249 –278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist,
42, 756 –757.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth
about how women become leaders. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing
world. American Psychologist, 65, 216 –224. doi:10.1037/a0018957
Eisenhower, D. (1961, January 17). Farewell radio and television address
to the American people. Retrieved from http://www.eisenhower
.archives.gov/all_about_ike/Speeches/Farewell_Address.pdf
Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an
affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm.
American Psychologist, 65, 201–215. doi:10.1037/a0018597
Fisher, L. (1998). The politics of shared power. Denton, TX: Texas A&M
University Press.
Gallaudet University (1997). Deaf President Now anniversary: The is-
sues. Retrieved from http://www.gallaudet.edu/dpn/issues/Default.htm
Gao, G., Ting-Toomey, S., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1996). Chinese com-
munication process. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese
psychology (pp. 280 –293). Hong Kong, China: Oxford University
Press.
Gay and Lesbian Leadership Institute. (n.d.). Out leaders. Retrieved from
http://www.glli.org/home
Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to
leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of
leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain per-
spective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219 –247. doi:10.1016/1048-
9843(95)90036-5
Greene, B. (2007). Voices from the margins—The multiple identities of
client, therapist, and theories. A reply to Aron, Olson & Jenkins. In J. C.
Muran (Ed.), Dialogues on difference: Diversity studies of the thera-
peutic relationship (pp. 78 – 82). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of
legitimate power and greatness. New York, NY: Paulist Press.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereo-
types prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 657– 674. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234
Helms, J. E. (1993). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research and
practice. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). The aversive form
of racism. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice and dis-
crimination: Vol. 1. Racism in America (pp. 119 –136). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
House, R. J. (1977). A 1976 theory of charismatic leadership. In J. G.
Hunt & L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge (pp. 189 –
207). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V.
(Eds.). (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE
study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2009). Women in national parliaments. Re-
trieved from http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple
dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4),
405– 414.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality
April 2010 ● American Psychologist
and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 87, 765–780. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765
Kao, H. S. R., Sinha, D., & Wilpert, B. (1999). Management and cultural
values: The indigenization of organizations in Asia. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kellerman, B. (2004). Bad leadership: What it is, how it happens, why it
matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
LaFramboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1998). Psychological
impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. In P. B. Organista, K. M.
Chun, & G. Marin (Eds.), Readings in ethnic psychology (pp. 123–155).
New York, NY: Routledge.
McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York, NY:
Irvington.
Meacham, J. (2008, December 20) The story of power. Newsweek. Re-
trieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/176300.
Moore, L. (1986). Not as far as you think. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Moxley, R. S. (2000). Leadership and spirit. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
The new global elite: World’s 50 most powerful people. (2008, December
20). Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/176484
Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Obama, B. H. (2008, March 18). Obama race speech: Remarks of Senator
Barack Obama: “A More Perfect Union.” Retrieved from http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/18/obama-race-speech-read-
th_n_92077.html
Phinney, J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of
the research. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 499 –514. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.108.3.499
Pittinsky, T. (2010). A two-dimensional theory of intergroup leadership:
The case of national diversity. American Psychologist, 65, 194 –200.
doi:10.1037/a0017329
Puffer, S. M. (2004). International management: Insights from fiction and
practice. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Ridgeway, C. L. (Ed.). (1992). Gender, interaction, and inequality. New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Rodrigues, C. A. (2001). Fayol’s 14 principles of management then and now:
A framework for managing today’ s organizations effectively. Manage-
ment Decision, 39, 880 – 889. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006527
Rost, J. C. (1991). Leadership in the 21st century. New York, NY:
Praeger.
Sanchez-Hucles, J. V., & Davis, D. D. (2010). Women and women of
color in leadership: Complexity, identity, and intersectionality. Ameri-
can Psychologist, 65, 171–181. doi:10.1037/a0017459
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Silver, R. R., Holman, E. A., McIntosh, D. N., Poulin, M., & Gil-Rivas,
V. (2002). Nationwide longitudinal study of psychological responses to
September 11. Journal of the American Medical Association, 288,
1235–1244.
Sowell, T. (1994). Race and culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Sue, D. W. (1978). World views and counseling. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 56, 458 – 462.
Sutter, R. G. (2009). The United States in Asia. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2007). Tables from employment and
earnings: Annual average, household data. Retrieved from http://
www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Statistical abstract of the United States:
2010 (129th ed.) Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/
statab/
U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Good for business:
Making full use of the nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: Gov-
ernment Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/oasam/
programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf
Vroom, V. H. (2003). Educating managers for decision making and
leadership. Management Decision, 41, 968 –978.
Weber, M. (1968). The types of legitimate domination. In G. Roth & C.
Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive soci-
ology (pp. 212–301). New York, NY: Bedminster Press. (Original work
published 1925)
155
Worldwide Guide to Women in Leadership. (n.d). Current female heads of
state and government. Retrieved from http://guide2womenleaders.com/
index.html
Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
156
Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451– 483. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00093-5
Zweigenhaft, R. L., & Domhoff, G. W. (2006). Diversity in the power
elite: How it happened, why it matters. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
April 2010 ● American Psychologist