The Oxford Handbook of Individual Differences in Organizational Contexts 9780192651648, 9780192897114

Citation preview

T h e Ox f o r d H a n d b o o k o f

I N DI V I D UA L DI F F E R E N C E S I N ORG A N I Z AT IONA L C ON T E X T S

The Oxford Handbook of

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXTS Edited by

AYBARS TUNCDOGAN, OGUZ A. ACAR, HENK W. VOLBERDA, and

KO DE RUYTER

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © The several contributors 2024 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted First Edition published in 2024 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2023945783 ISBN 978–​0–​19–​289711–​4 DOI: 10.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780192897114.001.0001 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

We dedicate this book to our children, who taught us so much about individual differences. For Meryem, my little flower—​Aybars For Alara and Ada, my unicorns—​Oguz For Lisa, Celine, and Marrit, my three wonderful daughters—​Henk For Holly, Robert, and Cameron, our terrific triplets—​Ko

Contents

Contributors 

xi

PA RT I   I N T RODU C T ION 1. Introduction  Aybars Tuncdogan, Oguz A. Acar, Henk W. Volberda, and Ko de Ruyter

3

PA RT I I   T H E ROL E OF P SYC HOL O G IC A L T R A I T S A N D I N DI V I D UA L DI F F E R E N C E S I N ORG A N I Z AT IONA L C ON T E X T S 2. Scaling the Ivory Tower: The Organizational Consequences of CEO Personality  Cameron J. Borgholthaus and Peter D. Harms

13

3. The Perceived Controllability of the Big Five Personality Traits at Work  Mallory A. McCord and Bethany Westerberg

31

4. Individual Differences in Curiosity: Learning, Adaptation, and Work-​Related Outcomes  Thomas G. Reio, Jr.

43

5. IQ, EQ, and Multiple Intelligences: A Brief Review of the Discussion  Aybars Tuncdogan, Oguz A. Acar, Henk W. Volberda, and Ko de Ruyter 6. Cultural Intelligence and Personality: Differential Effects of Plasticity and Stability Meta-​Traits  Thomas Rockstuhl, Kok Yee Ng, and Soon Ang

53

64

viii   Contents

7. Managers’ Regulatory Focus, Exploration-​Exploitation, and Temporal Ambidexterity: Toward a Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship  Aybars Tuncdogan, Paavo Ritala, and Päivi Karhu 8. Individual Differences in Social Comparison in Organizations  Abraham P. Buunk

82 107

9. Explorations of the Shadow Realm: Examining the Role of Dark Personality in the Workplace  Peter D. Harms, Karen Landay, and Tyler Fezzey

122

10. Moderating Machiavelli: How Do Situational Characteristics Shape the Expression of Machiavellianism in the Workplace?  Destiny R. Hemsey and Jason J. Dahling

140

11. Prevention Focus as an Overlooked Benefactor: An Investigation into Its Role as an Antecedent of Management Team Accountability  Aybars Tuncdogan, Frans van den Bosch, and Henk W. Volberda

159

PA RT I I I  B IOL O G IC A L /​P H YSIOL O G IC A L T R A I T S A N D I N DI V I D UA L DI F F E R E N C E S I N ORG A N I Z AT IONA L C ON T E X T S 12. Sex Differences in Vocational Interests: An Analysis of Cohorts  Julie Aitken Schermer and Kristi Baerg MacDonald

173

13. Gender Differences in Negotiations  Katharina G. Kugler, Julia A. M. Reif, and Jens Mazei

191

14. Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination? Comparing Older Women with Older Men in the Workplace Context  Angela Shakeri and Michael S. North 15. Why We Still Have Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals into Leadership Roles and What Can Be Done about It  Terrance W. Fitzsimmons, Victor J. Callan, Miriam S. Yates, and Ree Jordan 16. Leadership Faces: Overlooking Good Leaders  Dawn L. Eubanks

209

225

248

Contents   ix

17. What Do Celebrity CEOs Look Like?  Udari Ekanayake and Mariano Heyden 18. A Neuroscience Perspective on Individual Differences in Organizations  William J. Becker, Kristina Cechova, and Angela M. Passarelli 19. Organizational Research, Genetics, and the Possible Coming Era of Organizational Genomics  Wen-​Dong Li, Zhaoli Song, and Richard D. Arvey

261

287

305

PA RT I V   I N DI V I DUA L DI F F E R E N C E S I N T H E AG E OF T E C H N OL O G IC A L A N D S O C IA L DI SRU P T ION 20. Digital Data and Personality: Challenges and Opportunities for Organizations  Joanne Hinds 21. Individual Differences in Teaming with Artificial Intelligence, Robots, and Virtual Agents in the Workplace  Gerald Matthews, Peter A. Hancock, James L. Szalma, Jinchao Lin, and April Rose Panganiban 22. Individual Differences in Teleworking Outcomes  Christine Anderl

325

345

368

23. Self-​Monitoring Personality Trait in Organizations: A Research Agenda for Self-​Monitoring Effects in Remote Work, Leadership Diversity, and Beyond  Uzay Dural and Selin Kudret

386

24. Diversity in Organizations: Understanding and Managing Its Effects  Christoph Reinert and Claudia Buengeler

413

25. Neurodiversity at Work: The Illustrating Case of ADHD in Organizational Behavior  Daniel A. Lerner, Carlina Conrad, and Asya Karabayeva

439

x   Contents

26. Fostering True Self-​Expression in Organizations: A Metaphor-​based Framework of Leader Authenticity Tensions  456 Sandra E. Cha, Patricia Faison Hewlin, and Laura Morgan Roberts Index 

477

Contributors

The Volume Editors Aybars Tuncdogan is a Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) of Marketing & Technology at King’s Business School, King’s College London. Before joining King’s College London, he served as a Lecturer in Marketing & Strategy at Cardiff University. He obtained his MPhil and Ph.D. from the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, and his Bachelor’s degree from Earlham College, where he double majored in Computer Science and Business Management. Oguz A. Acar is a Professor of Marketing & Innovation at King’s Business School, King’s College London. He is a Research Affiliate at Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard University, an Expert at World Economic Forum, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (RSA). He was recently named one of the World’s Top 40 Business School Professors under 40. Henk W. Volberda is Professor of Strategic Management & Innovation at Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam and Scientific Director of the Amsterdam Centre for Business Innovation. He is expert member of the World Economic Forum and fellow of the European Academy of Management. His research focuses on various themes such as hyper-​competition, new business models, strategic flexibility, and management innovation. He has published extensively in top journals such as Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Organization Science, and Strategic Management Journal. He has received numerous awards including the Erasmus Research Award and the prestigious Igor Ansoff Strategic Management Award. Ko de Ruyter is Professor of Marketing, Head of the Department of Marketing and Vice Dean (Research) at King’s Business School. His research focuses on customer loyalty, marketing strategy, technology on the organizational frontline, and social media. He has published widely in flagship academic business journals, such as the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Consumer Research and Management Science. Professor de Ruyter has been awarded a life-​time achievement by the American Marketing Association.

xii   Contributors

The Contributors Christine Anderl is a postdoctoral researcher at the Leibniz-​Institut für Wissensmedien (IWM; Knowledge Media Research Center) in Tübingen, Germany, where she investigates how individuals interact and network via digital media. Moreover, she is interested in examining how digital technologies can be leveraged to improve our health and wellbeing. She studied Psychology (LMU Munich and Université de Montréal) and Neuro-​Cognitive Psychology (LMU Munich, M.Sc.) and received her doctoral degree in Psychology from the Goethe University in Frankfurt in October 2015. Soon Ang is the Distinguished University Professor in Leadership and International Management at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is the founder of the Center for Leadership and Cultural Intelligence. Soon Ang has published extensively and is a world authority in Cultural Intelligence (CQ) and Leadership. She pioneered CQ, authoring foundational books (Stanford University Press), and creating the world’s first multimedia situational judgment test for CQ. Richard D. Arvey was the Chair of the Department of Management at the National University of Singapore. Previously he taught and conducted research at the Universities of Minnesota, Houston, and Tennessee. His area of research includes Selection and staffing, organizational behavior, and leadership. He has published more than 100 referred articles in top journals and was given the award of “Distinguished Scientific Contribution” by the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. William J. Becker is an Associate Professor of Management at the Pamplin College of Business at Virginia Tech. He received his Ph.D. in Management from the University of Arizona where he also minored in Cognitive Neuroscience. His work has appeared in top journals including Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Management, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour, and Personnel Psychology. Cameron J. Borgholthaus is an Assistant Professor of Management at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He received his Ph.D. in Business Administration with an emphasis in Strategic Management from the University of Nebraska-​Lincoln. His research focuses on strategic leadership and corporate governance, placing particular emphasis on CEO personality, the dyadic relationship between a firm’s CEO and its board of directors, and the effects of TMT and board diversity. Claudia Buengeler is a Full Professor and Chair of the Human Resource Management and Organization Department at the Institute of Business, Kiel University, in Germany and an affiliated faculty member of the University of Amsterdam’s business school. Beforehand she worked at the Amsterdam Business School, University of Mannheim, and Jacobs University, and earned her Ph.D. in Business Administration as well as Social and Organizational Psychology.

Contributors   xiii Abraham P. Buunk was a Professor of Evolutionary Social Psychology at the University of Groningen, The Netherlands until 2012. From 2013 to 2017 he was a part-​time Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at the University of Curaçao. Dr. Buunk’s research focuses primarily on evolutionary and cultural approaches of human behavior, recently especially intrasexual competitiveness, jealousy, the effects of father absence, the psychological effects of height, and parental control of mate choice. Victor J. Callan, AM is Professor of Management and Leadership at the University of Queensland (UQ) Business School. His research investigates organizational change, leadership and employee training, and he is one of Australia’s most recognized researchers in these fields. Victor is a regular contributor to executive education for senior managers and executives in the public and private sectors in Australia and internationally, and he has completed over 100 projects as an adviser for Federal, State, and local government departments. Kristina Cechova is a former Ph.D. student in Management at Virginia Tech, currently pursuing a career in entrepreneurship. As a Ph.D. student, Kristina’s research focused on the impact of individual differences within organizations, human resource management and leadership, as well as the intersection of Psychology’s Cognitive Behavioral Theory and the Behavioral Theory of Strategy. Sandra E. Cha is an Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior at Brandeis University’s International Business School. Professor Cha conducts research on leadership, diversity, authenticity, identity, and corporate values in twenty-​first-​­century organizations. Her work on diversity and authenticity examines how individuals manage their own identities—​such as by expressing, suppressing, or acting upon various facets of who they are—​in demographically diverse organizations. Carlina Conrad is a doctoral candidate in Organizational Behavior at IE Business School, focusing on biases, conflict resolution and well-​being. Her research has been published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior (JOB) and presented at leading conferences such as AOM, SJDM, EURAM, and at IACM where she received the Early Career Scholars Award. She instructs leadership courses for undergraduates, and leading executives and investors. Carlina earned her B.Sc. at Jacobs University and M.A. at New York University in Social Psychology and Neuroscience. Jason J. Dahling is a Professor and Chair of the Psychology Department at The College of New Jersey (TCNJ). His research, teaching, and consulting focuses on problems with self-​regulation at work, particularly with respect to deviant behavior and the management of emotions in organizational settings. He has published over 60 articles and chapters in outlets such as Personnel Psychology, American Psychologist, Journal of Management, and Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes. Uzay Dural is an Assistant Professor of Organizational Psychology at Istanbul Medeniyet University. She completed her undergraduate studies in psychology at Boğaziçi University and obtained her Ph.D. in organizational behavior from Sabancı

xiv   Contributors University, Turkey. Dural’s research interests include socio-​cognitive processes in leadership, women’s management, psychological well-​being, and individual differences at work. Her doctoral thesis focused on individual and contextual predictors of the change in implicit prejudice toward female leadership in organizations over time. Udari Ekanayake is a Research scholar at the Monash Business School. Her research focuses on observable characteristics of senior leaders influence on outsiders’ (mis)perception of their competence where her research interests are at the intersection of strategic leadership focusing on Chief Executive Officers’ (CEO) personality (Narcissism & Dominance), CEO bio-​physiological features, and CEO-​Top Management Team (TMT) interaction. Dawn L. Eubanks is an Associate Professor at Warwick Business School at University of Warwick (2011–​present). Eubanks is a member is the editorial board for The Leadership Quarterly, Associate Editor for Creativity Research Journal and served as Associate Editor for Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Eubanks has been successful earning grants in excess of £100k from government funding bodies such as the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC). Tyler Fezzey is a first-​year Management doctoral student, Capstone Graduate Council Fellow, Dr. Minnie C. Miles Endowed Scholarship Recipient, and Dr. Frederic Brett Augustin Endowed Scholarship Recipient in the Culverhouse College of Business at the University of Alabama. She earned her Master of Business Administration, Emphasis in Business Analytics, from the University of West Florida and her Bachelor of Arts in Business Administration, Finance, from California State University, Fullerton. Her research interests include competitiveness, dark personality, leadership, and gender. Terrance W. Fitzsimmons is an Associate Professor in Leadership with the University of Queensland. His research investigates the barriers to gender equality in corporate leadership positions. He regularly works with peak government and private sector bodies on furthering the progression of women in corporate Australia. Reports from his major studies have been used by these bodies to inform policy and practice in the area of Gender Equality and to inform organizational and social change. Peter A. Hancock, D.Sc., Ph.D. is Provost Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Psychology and the Institute for Simulation and Training, as well as at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Systems at the University of Central Florida (UCF). In 2009 he was created the 16th ever UCF University Pegasus Professor (the Institution’s highest honor) and in 2012 was named sixth ever University Trustee Chair. Peter D. Harms is the Frank Schultz Endowed Professor of Business in the Department of Management at the University of Alabama’s Culverhouse College of Business. His research focuses on the assessment and development of leadership, personality, and psychological well-​being, and he has published over 180 articles, chapters, books, and technical reports. Dr. Harms was selected as one of the “100 Knowledge Leaders

Contributors   xv of Tomorrow” by the St. Gallen Symposium and the Network of Leadership Scholars recognized him as the “Standout Scholar of the Year” in 2021. Destiny R. Hemsey is a Ph.D. student at the Pennsylvania State University, where she will receive both her M.A. and Ph.D. Her research interests include the role of individual differences in selection-​making decisions, employee personality in the workplace, and the intersection of autonomy and financial dependence in gig-​work employment settings. She has experience consulting organizations on leadership and performance assessment with both professional companies and undergraduate students. Patricia Faison Hewlin joined McGill University in 2010. She conducts research on how organization members and leaders engage in authentic expression, as well as factors that impede authenticity in everyday work interactions. Her research has centered on employee silence, and the degree to which members suppress personal values and pretend to embrace those of the organization, a behavior she has termed as “creating facades of conformity.” Mariano Heyden is Professor of Strategy & International Business at the Monash Business School, where he also serves as Director of Ph.D. Degrees in the Department of Management. His research tackles the characteristics of senior business leaders that enable innovation and change appearing in leading scholarly journals such as Journal of Management, Journal of Applied Psychology, Research Policy, Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Corporate Finance, The Leadership Quarterly, and Human Resource Management. Joanne Hinds is a Senior Lecturer in Information Systems at the Information, Decisions, and Operations Division in the School of Management at the University of Bath. She holds a Ph.D. in Informatics and a BSc in Computer Science, both from the University of Manchester. Dr. Hinds’ research seeks to understand how people behave, and how/​ why their behavior changes when interacting with some form of technology (such as the internet, social media, digital devices). Ree Jordan is a Lecturer of Leadership and Management at the University of Queensland (UQ) Business School. Her research focuses on creating action for change through enhanced capabilities in leadership, innovation and entrepreneurialism that pushes existing boundaries and challenges the status quo, with a particular emphasis on understanding the benefits of non-​conformity in organizations (maverickism). Asya Karabayeva is a doctoral candidate at IE Business School. Her research explores the impact of different elements within the modern workplace on equality, specifically in terms of providing employees with equal opportunities for career advancement. She examines this question from a gender, diversity, and inclusion lens. Asya received an honors undergraduate degree in psychology from University College London and an MBA from Clark University, where she was a Fulbright scholar. Päivi Karhu (Ph.D.) is a Senior Lecturer of Leadership and Development at Kajaani University of Applied Sciences, Finland. She teaches mainly research, development, and

xvi   Contributors innovation related courses to international professionals pursuing their Master’s degree in various study programs. She is working closely with regional public organizations and businesses as well as developing education and innovation networks internationally. She defended her doctoral dissertation on “cognitive ambidexterity” at LUT University in 2017. Selin Kudret is an Associate Professor in Leadership at Henley Business School. She is the Academic Lead and Director for the British Army’s Higher Education Pathway (AHEP) degree programs. She holds a Ph.D. in Human Resource Management and Organizational Behavior from King’s College London. She worked in various executive roles in multinational organizations for a decade prior to her academic career. Katharina G. Kugler holds a postdoctoral position at the Ludwig-​ Maximilians-​ Universität München, Munich, Germany (in the area of Economic and Organizational Psychology), where she also earned a master’s (Dipl. Psych.) and doctorate (D. Phil.) degree in psychology. During her graduate and doctorate studies she spent several years at “The Morton Deutsch International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution,” Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. Karen Landay is an Assistant Professor of Management in the Henry W. Bloch School of Management at the University of Missouri-​Kansas City. She earned her Ph.D. in Management from the Culverhouse College of Business at the University of Alabama, her Master of Business Administration from the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, and her Bachelor of Music in Violin Performance from the Chicago College of Performing Arts at Roosevelt University. Daniel A. Lerner holds a Ph.D. in Strategic, Organizational and Entrepreneurial Studies and Bachelor’s degree in Psychology. He has published articles in leading scholarly journals including: Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management Review, Academy of Management Perspectives, Small Business Economics Journal, Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, among others. Wen-​Dong Li is an Associate Professor at the Department of Management, the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Prior to joining CUHK, he worked as an Assistant Professor at Kansas State University. His research and teaching interests focus on leadership, proactivity, work design, individual differences, and recently change-​related issues in organizational research. Jinchao Lin received his Ph.D. (2017) in modeling and simulation from the University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. He is currently a research faculty working at the Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL. His research interests include human factors in transportation and unmanned systems, human performance evaluation in nuclear power plant operations, the impacts of stress, workload and fatigue on human performance, and mental models of human–​robot teaming.

Contributors   xvii Kristi Baerg MacDonald is a psychology Ph.D. candidate at the University of Western Ontario. Her work over the past few years has focused on loneliness and technology use, and she is also working on projects in the field of personality and measurement. Gerald Matthews is Professor of Psychology at George Mason University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Cambridge in 1984. He has also held faculty positions at Aston University, University of Dundee, University of Cincinnati, and University of Central Florida. His research interests focus on human performance, especially impacts of stress, workload, fatigue, and individual differences. His current research addresses interactions between human operators and intelligent, autonomous machines, as well as the application of artificial intelligence to cybersecurity. Jens Mazei is a tenured researcher in the Department of Psychology at TU Dortmund University (Germany). He received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Muenster (Germany), and he was a visiting scholar at DePaul University (Chicago, IL) and Stony Brook University (Stony Brook, NY). In his research, Jens Mazei focuses on the topics of gender differences in negotiation, motivation in teams, as well as Open Science Practices. Mallory A. McCord is an Assistant Professor of Industrial/​Organizational Psychology at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA. She holds a Ph.D. in I/​O Psychology from the University of Central Florida. Her primary research interests include workplace mistreatment and deviance, often using meta-​analytic methods. She has spearheaded scholarly research in the organizational sciences on the topic of negative responses to introversion at work, including perceived introversion mistreatment. Kok Yee Ng is Professor in Leadership and International Management at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. She is the Director of Research at the Center for Leadership and Cultural Intelligence. Kok Yee Ng’s research interests include culture, cultural intelligence, and global leadership. An award-​winning researcher and educator, she has published in the top academic journals of Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Management Science, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and others. Michael S. North is Assistant Professor of Management and Organizations at the Stern School of Business, New York University. Professor North’s research focuses primarily on challenges of—​and considerations for—​the aging and increasingly multigenerational workforce, and implications thereof for hiring, diversity, leadership, innovation, and virtually all other management domains. April Rose Panganiban received her B.S. in Psychology from the University of Florida in 2002. She received both her M.A. and Ph.D. in Experimental and Human Factors Psychology from the University of Cincinnati in (2010/​2013). She has worked with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Human Performance Wing since 2007 as a contractor, then a civilian Research Psychologist (2013–​present).

xviii   Contributors Angela M. Passarelli is an Associate Professor of Management at the College of Charleston, SC, and Director of Research at the Institute of Coaching, McLean/​Harvard Medical School. She also serves as a research fellow with the Coaching Research Lab at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University. Her research focuses on how workplace relationships support learning, particularly in the context of leader development. She draws on neuroscience and psychophysiology to explore the implicit dynamics of these relationships. Julia A. M. Reif is Professor of Economic and Organizational Psychology at the Department of Business Administration of the University of the Bundeswehr Munich. Her research focuses on gender differences in negotiation situations, relationship regulation in economic decisions, team adaptivity, health and strain in modern work environments, as well as integration and organizational acculturation. Reif is active as a speaker at conferences and conventions and as an author of numerous scientific papers. Christoph Reinert is a Research Associate at the Chair of Human Resource Management at the Institute of Business, Kiel University, in Germany. His research interests lie in the fields of team diversity and diversity management. More precisely, he studies the mechanisms underlying effective teamwork and assesses the role of diversity training and leadership behaviors in managing diverse teams. Thomas G. Reio, Jr. is Professor of Adult Education and Human Resource Development at Florida International University in Miami, Florida. He is immediate past Editor of Human Resource Development Quarterly and former Editor of Human Resource Development Review. He is current co-​Editor of New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development. His research concerns curiosity and risk-​taking motivation, workplace socialization processes, workplace incivility, creativity, and workplace learning. Paavo Ritala is a Professor of Strategy and Innovation at the Business School at LUT University, Finland. His main research themes include networks, ecosystems, and platforms, the role of data and digital technologies in organizations, business model innovation, and circular and regenerative economy. His research has been published in journals such as Journal of Management, Research Policy, Journal of Product Innovation Management, R&D Management, Technovation, Long Range Planning, Industrial and Corporate Change, and California Management Review. Laura Morgan Roberts is a Frank M. Sands Sr. Associate Professor of Business Administration (with tenure) at the University of Virginia’s Darden School of Business. Dr. Morgan Roberts earned a B.A. in Psychology (highest distinction & Phi Beta Kappa) from the University of Virginia, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Organizational Psychology from the University of Michigan. Thomas Rockstuhl is Associate Professor in Leadership and International Management at the Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He is the Director of Psychometrics at the Center for Leadership and Cultural Intelligence. Rockstuhl is an award-​winning

Contributors   xix researcher whose research has appeared in top academic journals, such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of International Business Studies, and Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Julie Aitken Schermer (formerly Harris) is a Professor in the Departments of Psychology and the Management and Organizational Studies at The University of Western Ontario in London, Canada. She has authored and co-​authored over 125 peer-​ reviewed articles and the creator of the vocational interest measure, the Jackson Career Explorer. Angela Shakeri is a Ph.D. student in management and organizations at NYU Stern. Her research broadly revolves around diversity in organizations. She is particularly interested in how age intersects with other social categories, such as gender, race, and social class, to compound or reduce workplace inequalities. Prior to joining as a Ph.D. student, Angela received her B.S. in Management and Marketing from NYU Stern and worked as a lab manager for the NYU AGE Initiative. Zhaoli Song is an Associate Professor at NUS Business School, National University of Singapore. He completed his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota in Human Resources and Industrial Relations. His research is published in several renowned outlets including Journal of Applied Psychology, Academy of Management Journal, PNAS, Personnel Psychology, Journal of Business Venturing, and Journal of Vocational Behavior among others. James L. Szalma is a Professor and the Director of the Human Factors and Cognitive Psychology Ph.D. Program in the Psychology Department at the University of Central Florida. He received a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Michigan in 1990 and an MA in Applied Experimental/​Human Factors psychology in 1997 from the University of Cincinnati. He received a Ph.D. in Applied Experimental/​Human Factors psychology in 1999 from the University of Cincinnati. Frans van den Bosch is a Professor of Management interfaces between organizations and environment at the Department of Strategic Management & Entrepreneurship, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University (RSM). Professor van den Bosch’s major research interests lie in the development of integrative strategy frameworks incorporating both the externally and internally focused view of strategy. He has been appointed as an honorary ERIM fellow. Bethany Westerberg is a Human Resources Generalist at SouthWest Transit in Eden Prairie, MN. She received her B.A.S. in Psychology in 2020 and her M.A. in Industrial/​ Organizational Psychology in 2022 from the University of Minnesota Duluth. She remotely presented this research as a poster at the Society of Industrial/​Organizational Psychology Annual Conference in 2021. Miriam S. Yates is a Research Fellow at the Institute of Social Science Research at the University of Queensland. She is also a practicing Organizational Psychologist who

xx   Contributors consults to industry on people related matters. Her research interests coalesce around issues of social justice within organizations, encompassing gender, intersectionality, and minority group members workplace experiences. Miriam has published on gender inequality in leadership and positions of power and maintains an active research program focused on understanding the levers for producing more equitable workplaces and organizations.

Pa rt I

I N T RODU C T ION

chapter 1

Introdu c t i on Aybars Tuncdogan, Oguz A. Acar, Henk W. Volberda, and Ko de Ruyter

Throughout the course of human history, a core interest has been to understand the individual differences that make some people—​as well as the collectives within which certain people are embedded—​more successful and effective than others. More specifically, research on individual differences forms one of the key areas of psychology—​essentially the “nature” component of the discipline (the counterpart being social and developmental psychology, or the “nurture” component—​although there also are different views in this area). Research on individual differences has widespread applications in several fields rooted in psychology, including leadership, organizational behavior, strategic management, and marketing. For instance, the field of leadership originated from the literature on individual differences, and a key question that continues to engage scholars and practitioners in leadership, human resource management, and strategic management is how to select managers and other types of leaders. Likewise, individual differences among employees shape their perceptions, values, and tendencies, making research on these differences indispensable, especially for understanding and predicting worker performance. Due to its vast applications in organizational settings, research on individual differences is attracting significant attention from a diverse group of scholars. While this boom in knowledge is a positive development, it also introduces the challenge of fragmentation. In other words, various sub-​streams of literature are emerging across a range of journals. This breadth and diversity can make it difficult for scholars to track existing knowledge and identify gaps, for postgraduate students or academics from other fields to know where to begin their reading, and for practitioners to extract the specific information they need for particular purposes (e.g., forming a multifaceted management team that can deal with diverse sets of problems). In 2017, two members of our team published an overview of individual differences research within the field of leadership (Tuncdogan, Acar, & Stam, 2017 in the Leadership Quarterly). However, we came to two important realizations. First, the fragmentation

4    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, K. de Ruyter resulting from an extensive and growing body of knowledge is not confined to the leadership subfield; it pervades the entire field of organization studies. Second, we could go into only so much detail in our paper even about the leadership subfield. This pointed to the fact that a summary of the individual differences research within the broader field on organization studies warrants a comprehensive research anthology. This edited volume is our attempt to provide such an overview, focusing on the key individual differences that play a pivotal role in organizational contexts.

Contribution and Target Audience of This Book We believe that the core contribution of this book—​that is, providing an overview of key streams of individual differences research within organization studies—​will benefit at least three target audiences. Firstly, academics interested in organizations (e.g., those specializing in management, leadership, organizational behavior, human resource management, and marketing management) who focus on the individual differences perspective will gain a better understanding of the various sub-​streams of literature and will be able to identify future opportunities in these areas. Secondly, postgraduate students (both master’s and PhD candidates) and academics from other fields who wish to incorporate the individual differences perspective into their research or teaching will find this work provides easy access to the field. Lastly, practitioners (e.g., managers) who are interested in understanding the applications of specific types of individual differences will find related chapters of this book to be useful as a starting point.

Structure of This Book The remainder of this book consists of 25 chapters, each focusing on one or more individual differences. Each chapter introduces the individual difference(s) under consideration, applies it within the context of organizations, and points toward directions for future research in that area. The chapters are grouped under three broad headings: “The Role of Psychological Traits and Individual Differences in Organizational Contexts,” “Biological/​Physiological Traits and Individual Differences in Organizational Contexts,” and “Individual Differences in the Age of Technological and Social Disruption.” The first section, “The Role of Psychological Traits and Individual Differences in Organizational Contexts,” comprises 10 chapters. These chapters provide overviews of key individual differences concerning the psychological aspects of human beings, such as personality traits and related variables (e.g., Anglim et al., 2020; McCord &

Introduction   5 Joseph, 2020; Reio et al., 2006), Dark Triad personality traits (e.g., Borgholthaus, White, & Harms, 2023; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Paulhus, Williams, & Harms, 2001), intelligences (e.g., Ang & Van Dyne, 2015; Davis et al., 2011; Earley & Ang, 2003; MacCann et al., 2020; Spearman, 1914), and regulatory focus (e.g., Higgins, 1997; Kanze et al., 2018; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015). This section begins with the chapter by Cameron Borgholthaus and Peter Harms, who consider the effects of personality traits in organizational settings, with a specific focus on CEO personality. They provide a broad overview of variables included in the Big Five (Five Factor Model), HEXACO (Six Factor Model) and Dark Triad. Next, Mallory McCord and Bethany Westerberg take a different perspective on the Big Five personality traits, focusing on the perceived controllability of these variables, and how these perceptions can affect the treatment of individuals with different personality trait combinations at the workplace. Thomas Reio then discusses research on the curiosity trait, its nomological network, and work-​related outcomes. This is followed by a chapter by the Aybars Tuncdogan, Oguz A. Acar, Henk W. Volberda, and Ko de Ruyter briefly reviewing the concepts of IQ, EQ, and multiple intelligences, as well as organizational research in these areas. Subsequently, Thomas Rockstuhl, Kok Yee Ng, and Soon Ang provide a meta-​analytical review of the relationship between cultural intelligence and personality. Aybars Tuncdogan, Paavo Ritala, and Päivi Karhu then introduce the concept of regulatory focus and describe its relationship with exploration-​ exploitation and temporal ambidexterity variables within a dynamic feedback loop. Abraham Buunk describes the individual differences in how people make upward and downward social comparisons within organizational settings in the following chapter. Peter Harms, Karen Landay, and Tyler Fezzey then review dark personality traits in the workplace. Destiny Hemsey and Jason Dahling, focus on the dark personality trait of Machiavellianism, and describe how situational effects can influence its expression in organizations. In the section’s final chapter, Aybars Tuncdogan, Frans van den Bosch, and Henk Volberda argue that the beneficial effects of its prevention component within the regulatory focus are less understood compared to those of the promotion component. They further propose that the prevention focus serves as a critical precursor to accountability within management teams. The second section, “Biological/​Physiological Traits and Individual Differences in Organizational Contexts,” consists of eight chapters. These chapters explore biological/​ physiological characteristics that have behavioral consequences within organizational contexts. These variables include sex/​gender (e.g., Fitzsimmons, Callan, & Paulsen, 2014; Kugler et al., 2018; MacDonald et al., 2023), age (e.g., Martin & North, 2022; North & Fiske, 2015; Swift & Chasteen, 2021), facial morphology (e.g., Antonakis & Eubanks, 2017; Hahn et al., 2017; Heyden et al., 2022; Olivola, Eubanks, & Lovelace, 2014), genetic makeup (e.g., Arvey et al., 1989; Arvey, Li, & Wang, 2016; Bagozzi & Verbeke, 2020), neurological structure (e.g., Becker, Cropanzano, & Sanfey, 2011; Jack et al., 2013; Murray & Antonakis, 2019). The first four chapters of this section have sex/​gender as one of their focal constructs. Starting off, Julie Aitken Schermer and Kristi Baerg MacDonald review and empirically analyze sex differences in vocational interests, utilizing a large adult

6    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, K. de Ruyter sample for their analysis. After that, Katharina Kugler, Jilia Reif, and Jens Mazei again consider sex differences, but this time in terms of negotiations, which are a daily part of organizational life. Following that, Angela Shakeri and Michael North consider age and gender as their focal constructs, and they examine how being an older woman or man affects one in the workplace. Next, Terrance Fitzsimmons, Victor Callan, Miriam Yates, and Ree Jordan take a different perspective on gender and try to understand how we can deal with the problem of gendered organizational progression into leadership roles. The next two chapters, by Dawn Eubanks and by Udari Ekanayake and Mariano Heyden, focus on facial morphology, and try to understand how the characteristics of one’s face affect their (perception of) leadership potential. Thereafter, William Becker, Kristina Cechova, and Angela Passarelli review the literature on organizational neuroscience and delve into some of the key variables in this area. Subsequently, Wen-​Dong Li, Zhaoli Song, and Richard Arvey review the ongoing genetics research within organizational contexts and introduce the futuristic concept of organizational genomics. The final section, “Individual Differences in the Age of Technological and Social Disruption,” contains chapters that can be grouped under two sub-​categories. The first four chapters focus mainly on technological aspects within individual differences research, such as the relationships between the individual differences literature and the literature on digital data (e.g., Hinds & Joinson, 2019; Hinds et al., 2022; Zarouali et al., 2022), artificial intelligence (e.g., Hancock et al., 2011; Matthews et al., 2021; Ransbotham et al., 2017) and remote work/​teleworking (e.g., Graves & Karabayeva, 2020; Laker et al., 2021; Saura, Ribeiro-​Soriano, & Saldaña, 2022; Ton et al., 2022). To begin with, Joanne Hinds discusses the emerging stream of research on personality that is being conducted using digital data (e.g., data scraping from social media profiles), how organizations can benefit from this and what kinds of issues they are going to face. Next, Gerald Matthews, Peter Hancock, James Szalma, Jinchao Lin, and April Rose Panganiban discuss how people differ in terms of their propensities to team up with AI-​based non-​human agents, such as robots and virtual agents. The following two chapters, by Christine Anderl and by Uzay Dural and Selin Kudret, focus on teleworking/​remote work, and consider the roles of various individual differences. The last three chapters of this section consider the future of organizations from a social perspective and show a focus primarily on concepts related to diversity and the expression of individual differences (e.g., van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Roberts et al., 2009; Cha et al., 2019; Mumu et al., 2022). More specifically, Christoph Reinert and Christina Buengeler review the literature on diversity and its outcomes, Daniel Lerner, Carlina Conrad, and Asya Karavayev consider diversity from a neurodiversity perspective and focus primarily on ADHD in organizations, and finally, Sandra Cha, Patricia Faison Hewlin, and Laura Morgan Roberts discuss how leader authenticity, as an individual difference, can enable self-​expression in organizational settings. Overall, this book aims to provide a comprehensive and accessible overview of the key individual differences research within the field of organization studies, which, we hope, offers a valuable resource for academics, postgraduate students, and practitioners alike. We would also like to use this opportunity to thank the authors for their contributions, as well as Oxford University Press, without which this book would not have been possible.

Introduction   7

References Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2015). Handbook of cultural intelligence: Theory, measurement, and applications. Routledge. Anglim, J., Horwood, S., Smillie, L. D., Marrero, R. J., & Wood, J. K. (2020). Predicting psychological and subjective well-​being from personality: A meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(4), 279. Antonakis, J., & Eubanks, D. L. (2017). Looking leadership in the face. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(3), 270–​275. Arvey, R. D., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Segal, N. L., & Abraham, L. M. (1989). Job satisfaction: Environmental and genetic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 187. Arvey, R. D., Li, W. D., & Wang, N. (2016). Genetics and organizational behavior. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 167–​190. Bagozzi, R. P., & Verbeke, W. J. (2020). Genetic and psychological underpinnings of motivation and satisfaction of industrial salespeople. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 69–​83. Becker, W. J., Cropanzano, R., & Sanfey, A. G. (2011). Organizational neuroscience: Taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of Management, 37(4), 933–​961. Borgholthaus, C. J., White, J. V., & Harms, P. D. (2023). CEO dark personality: A critical review, bibliometric analysis, and research agenda. Personality and Individual Differences, 201, 111951. Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., Roberts, L. M., Buckman, B. R., Leroy, H., Steckler, E. L., ... & Cooper, D. (2019). Being your true self at work: Integrating the fragmented research on authenticity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 633–​671. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219–​257. Davis, K., Christodoulou, J., Seider, S., & Gardner, H. E. (2011). The theory of multiple intelligences. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence (pp. 485–​503). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fitzsimmons, T. W., Callan, V. J., & Paulsen, N. (2014). Gender disparity in the C-​suite: Do male and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top?. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 245–​266. Graves, L. M., & Karabayeva, A. (2020). Managing virtual workers—​strategies for success. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 48(2), 166–​172. Hahn, T., Winter, N. R., Anderl, C., Notebaert, K., Wuttke, A. M., Clément, C. C., & Windmann, S. (2017). Facial width-​to-​height ratio differs by social rank across organizations, countries, and value systems. Plos one, 12(11), e0187957. Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y., De Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011). A meta-​analysis of factors affecting trust in human-​robot interaction. Human Factors, 53(5), 517–​527. Heyden, M. L., Gu, J., Wechtler, H. M., & Ekanayake, U. I. (2022). The face of wrongdoing? An expectancy violations perspective on CEO facial characteristics and media coverage of misconducting firms. The Leadership Quarterly, 34, 101671. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Hinds, J., Brown, O., Smith, L. G., Piwek, L., Ellis, D. A., & Joinson, A. N. (2022). Integrating insights about human movement patterns from digital data into psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(1), 88–​95.

8    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, K. de Ruyter Hinds, J., & Joinson, A. (2019). Human and computer personality prediction from digital footprints. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–​211. Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., Khawaja, M. S., Passarelli, A. M., & Leckie, R. L. (2013). Visioning in the brain: An fMRI study of inspirational coaching and mentoring. Social Neuroscience, 8(4), 369–​384. Kugler, K. G., Reif, J. A., Kaschner, T., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 198. Laker, B., Godley, W., Kudret, S., & Trehan, R. (2021). Four tips to nail a virtual job interview. Harvard Business Review. https://​hbr.org/​2021/​03/​4-​tips-​to-​nail-​a-​virt​ual-​job-​interv​iew MacCann, C., Jiang, Y., Brown, L. E., Double, K. S., Bucich, M., & Minbashian, A. (2020). Emotional intelligence predicts academic performance: A meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 150. McCord, M. A., & Joseph, D. L. (2020). A framework of negative responses to introversion at work. Personality and Individual Differences, 161, 109944. MacDonald, K. B., Benson, A., Sakaluk, J. K., & Schermer, J. A. (2023). Pre-​occupation: A meta-​analysis and meta-​regression of gender differences in adolescent vocational interests. Journal of Career Assessment, 31(4), 715–​738. Martin, A. E., & North, M. S. (2022). Equality for (almost) all: Egalitarian advocacy predicts lower endorsement of sexism and racism, but not ageism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(2), 373. Matthews, G., Hancock, P. A., Lin, J., Panganiban, A. R., Reinerman-​Jones, L. E., Szalma, J. L., & Wohleber, R. W. (2021). Evolution and revolution: Personality research for the coming world of robots, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, 109969. Mumu, J. R., Saona, P., Haque, M. S., & Azad, M. A. K. (2022). Gender diversity in corporate governance: A bibliometric analysis and research agenda. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 37(3), 328–​343. Murray, M. M., & Antonakis, J. (2019). An introductory guide to organizational neuroscience. Organizational Research Methods, 22(1), 6–​16. North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2015). Modern attitudes toward older adults in the aging world: A cross-​cultural meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 993. Olivola, C. Y., Eubanks, D. L., & Lovelace, J. B. (2014). The many (distinctive) faces of leadership: Inferring leadership domain from facial appearance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 817–​834. Paulhus, D. L., Williams, K., & Harms, P. (2001). Shedding light on the dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. In Annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. San Antonio, TX. Ransbotham, S., Kiron, D., Gerbert, P., & Reeves, M. (2017). Reshaping business with artificial intelligence: Closing the gap between ambition and action. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 1–​17. Reio Jr, T. G., Petrosko, J. M., Wiswell, A. K., & Thongsukmag, J. (2006). The measurement and conceptualization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(2), 117–​135. Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., & Settles, I. H. (2009). Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 149–​169). Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press.

Introduction   9 Saura, J. R., Ribeiro-​Soriano, D., & Saldaña, P. Z. (2022). Exploring the challenges of remote work on Twitter users’ sentiments: From digital technology development to a post-​ pandemic era. Journal of Business Research, 142, 242–​254. Spearman, C. (1914). The theory of two factors. Psychological Review, 21(2), 101. Swift, H. J., & Chasteen, A. L. (2021). Ageism in the time of COVID-​19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(2), 246–​252. Ton, D., Arendsen, K., De Bruyn, M., Severens, V., Van Hagen, M., Van Oort, N., & Duives, D. (2022). Teleworking during COVID-​19 in the Netherlands: Understanding behaviour, attitudes, and future intentions of train travellers. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 159, 55–​73. Tuncdogan, A., Acar, O. A., & Stam, D. (2017). Individual differences as antecedents of leader behavior: Towards an understanding of multi-​level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 40–​64. Tuncdogan, A., Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2015). Regulatory focus as a psychological micro-​foundation of leaders’ exploration and exploitation activities. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 838–​850. Tuncdogan, A., & Dogan, I. C. (2020). Managers’ regulatory focus, temporal focus and exploration–​exploitation activities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(1), 13–​27. Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–​541. Zarouali, B., Dobber, T., De Pauw, G., & de Vreese, C. (2022). Using a personality-​profiling algorithm to investigate political microtargeting: assessing the persuasion effects of personality-​ tailored ads on social media. Communication Research, 49(8), 1066–​1091.

PA RT I I

T H E ROL E OF P SYC HOL O G IC A L TRAITS AND I N DI V I DUA L DI F F E R E N C E S I N ORG A N I Z AT IONA L C ON T E X T S

chapter 2

Scaling the Ivory Towe r The Organizational Consequences of CEO Personality Cameron J. Borgholthaus and Peter D. Harms

Introduction Scholars often invoke Hambrick and Mason’s (1984) upper echelons theory (UET) to explain how executives’ values, experiences, and personalities play a sizeable role in organizational decision-​making processes and how they affect the strategic choices that an organization makes. Personality consists of the relatively stable characteristics within the individual which influence thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and shape how individuals respond to situational factors. Personality is a pervasive component within all organizations and has therefore generated considerable attention within the strategic leadership and corporate governance literatures (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Harrison et al., 2019; Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010). In particular, because an organization’s chief executive officer (CEO) often serves as the firm’s public face to its stakeholders (Busenbark et al., 2016; Love, Lim, & Bednar, 2017) researchers frequently focus their efforts on this individual specifically. As such, an overview of how CEO personality can affect organizational and individual outcomes should be of interest to both practitioners and researchers. The topic of CEO personality has unquestionably evolved within the field of management, but it has likewise evolved in other academic disciplines, including accounting (Brennan & Conroy, 2013), finance (Malmendier & Tate, 2008), and organizational psychology (Booth et al., 2016). Although our understanding of CEO personality has considerably advanced, much of the existing research has been conducted without due consideration of the multi-​faceted nature of personality. To address this issue, we provide a multi-​disciplinary overview of the ever-​expanding literature on CEO personality and discuss how CEO personality can affect organizational-​level outcomes. This

14    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms overview includes published research conducted over the past 25 years that has either incorporated CEO personality into empirical studies or has provided a theoretical or conceptual model which helps to advance the field’s understanding of the effects of CEO personality.

Overview of CEO Personality Because personality is such a fundamental element of an individual’s core self, scholars argue that it is a ubiquitous force within organizations and essential for understanding human decisions, actions, and relationships. Prior research has also established personality factors as significant determinants of numerous important outcomes at multiple levels of analysis, including individual, team, and organizational levels (Smith et al., 2018). Although there are many different trait characteristics, many of the most impactful traits are often categorized into conceptual groups to reflect either commonalities in their outcomes or the processes by which they were derived. For example, dark personality traits (also called derailers or subclinical traits) such as narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy are often lumped together in a grouping called the Dark Triad (Paulhus & Williams, 2002) because they all represent socially aversive behavioral patterns that tend to be associated with negative outcomes (Forsyth, Banks, & McDaniel, 2012). Conceptually similar traits such as hubris (Hayward & Hambrick, 1997) and overconfidence (Malmendier & Tate, 2008) are often considered to be dark traits as well. Another set of traits, representing major normal-​range traits that are not associated with interpersonal problems or pathologies, are often grouped and assessed through the lens of the Five-​Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992) of personality or an expanded variant, the HEXACO model (Ashton, Lee, & Goldberg, 2004), both of which were derived from factor analyses of personality trait descriptors. These models of personality reflect broad, socially consequential traits (Wood, 2015) such as extraversion, openness to experience, conscientiousness, emotional stability, agreeableness, and humility. Within the CEO personality literature, other individual traits, such as charisma, core self-​evaluation, liberalism, and submissiveness are frequently invoked to address the needs of particular theories or because the broader trait categories neglected important aspects of the self which may be consequential for those in the CEO role. In the following section, we break down each trait listed above and discuss in detail what the literature has found regarding outcomes associated with these traits. Table 2.1 provides a brief overview of each trait discussed in the chapter.

Dark Traits of CEO Personality Scholars investigating the role of CEO personality have focused a great deal of effort trying to come to an understanding of how dark personality traits shape CEO decisions

Scaling the Ivory Tower    15 Table 2.1 Summary of CEO personality traits included in review Positive characteristics of trait

Negative characteristics of trait

Dark

Visionary; Bold; Resistant to social influence; Creative; Confident

Elevated sense of entitlement; Excessive self-​admiration; Lack of empathy; Self-​aggrandizement; Sense of superiority

Overconfidence

Dark

Optimistic; Innovative

Optimistic; Overestimate accuracy of knowledge and judgements

Hubris

Dark

Innovative; Confident

Extreme self-​confidence; Pride; Unconcerned about others’ opinion of them

Machiavellianism

Dark

Exhibit prosocial behaviors; Cynical; Immoral; Capable of navigating Manipulative; Deceptive organizational politics

Psychopathy

Dark

Entrepreneurially oriented

Extraversion

FFM/​HEXACO

Assertive; Excitement Dominant; Surgent; Less seeking; Outgoing; Positive receptive to ideas and emotion; Warm suggestions of others

Openness to Experience

FFM/​HEXACO

Active imagination; Creative; Curious; Prefer variety; Adaptive

Less committed; Risk-​seeking

Conscientiousness

FFM/​HEXACO

Cautious; Deliberate; Achievement-​oriented; Self-​disciplined

Rigid; Intolerant of ambiguity; Need for control and structure

Neuroticism/​ Emotional Stability

FFM/​HEXACO

Vigilant; Make more accurate/​realistic judgments

Anxious; Depressed; Impulsive; Stressed

Agreeableness

FFM/​HEXACO

Altruistic; Cooperative; Empathetic; Kind; Modest; Trusting

Permit groupthink; Passive; Conflict avoiding

Humility

FFM/​HEXACO

Empowering; Fair; Modest; “Too nice” Sincere; Virtuous

Charisma

Other

Empowering; Influential; Relational

Manipulative

Core Self-​Evaluation

Other

Has high self-​worth, internal locus of control, self-​efficacy, and control over emotions

Set unrealistic goals

Liberalism

Other

Preference for equality, social change, and shared responsibility

Oppose tradition

Provocativeness

Other

Push others; High performer

Aggressive; Dominant; Hostile; Threatening

Submissiveness

Other

Meek; Not retaliatory

Defenseless; Unassured; Unmotivated

Trait

Category

Narcissism

Callous; Impulsive; Lack empathy

16    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms and their impact on organizational functioning and firm-​level performance. This is likely because of a widespread belief that individuals who possess high levels of dark personality traits tend to advance to the CEO position more quickly than those with lower levels of such traits (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005), a conjecture only partially supported by the empirical literature (Grijalva et al., 2015; Landay, Harms, & Credé, 2019). Many believe that these individuals ascend to the rank of CEO by virtue of their “propensity to self-​promote and take risks, which causes them to stand out among other potential leaders” (Smith et al., 2018: 197). As noted earlier, the dark traits most frequently examined in the CEO personality literature include narcissism, overconfidence, hubris, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Narcissism. In terms of both theoretical and empirical articles, narcissism is by far the most researched CEO personality trait by organizational scholars (Cragun, Olsen, & Wright, 2020). The American Psychiatric Association (APA; 2013) considers narcissism to be a multifaceted personality trait and includes characteristics such as attention seeking, having a general lack of regard for others, grandiosity, an unrealistically inflated self-​view, and a need for that self-​view to be reinforced continuously through self-​regulation. Many studies examining CEO narcissism highlight the negative characteristics of having a narcissistic CEO at the head of an organization. For example, narcissistic CEOs are thought to be particularly prone to boldness and are significantly more likely to engage in risky actions so that they can show off their self-​perceived superiority (Zhu & Chen, 2015). Moreover, scholars have also argued that CEO narcissism is positively related to variance in performance (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Wales, Patel, & Lumpkin, 2013), thereby creating a volatile environment for would-​be investors. With regard to ethics outcomes, firms led by narcissistic CEOs are more likely to be sued and less likely to settle these lawsuits than those with low narcissism levels (O’Reilly III, Doerr, & Chatman, 2018). Furthermore, narcissistic CEOs have a significantly higher likelihood of being found to have manipulated their reported earnings (Capalbo et al., 2018) and, because of this risk, firms led by narcissistic CEOs tend to incur higher audit fees from external auditors (Judd, Olsen, & Stekelberg, 2017) to offset the liability of auditing such firms. However, while an overwhelming amount of the CEO narcissism literature portrays this personality trait in a negative connotation, many recent studies have examined the positive aspects of narcissism within CEOs. For example, narcissistic CEOs are often perceived by others as organizational visionaries (Maccoby, 2000). Narcissistic CEOs also have a tendency to use a much more positive tone when speaking to stakeholders than CEOs with lower levels of narcissism (Marquez-​Illescas, Zebedee, & Zhou, 2019). Some research has suggested that CEO narcissism may even be associated with increased corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities (Al-​Shammari, Rasheed, & Al-​Shammari, 2019; Tang, Mack, & Chen, 2018). Nevertheless, organizational scholars also presuppose that the true intent of narcissistic CEOs participating in such activities may be less about altruism and more about attempting to generate positive attention for themselves (Petrenko et al., 2016). Narcissistic CEOs have also been shown to be adept

Scaling the Ivory Tower    17 at successfully directing organizational recovery efforts after economic shocks have occurred (Patel & Cooper, 2014), perhaps a reflection of their singlemindedness when it comes to achieving goals. Because of its status as a “mixed-​blessing” for firm outcomes, some scholars (e.g., Cragun et al., 2020; Harms & Sherman, 2021) have suggested that CEO narcissism is best studied using models and measures of narcissism that reflect both its positive and negative elements (e.g., Back et al., 2013). Although still few in number, empirical studies utilizing this approach have found distinctive effects for the positive and negative aspects of narcissism. For example, narcissistic CEO efforts to solicit praise and gain status can enhance top management team (TMT) functions and lead to greater firm performance even as negative CEO narcissism behaviors fail to significantly impact similar outcomes (Bachrach et al., 2021). Overconfidence. While narcissism is an oft-​examined personality trait within the management and accounting literatures, finance scholars investigating CEO personality traits have more often directed their attention toward CEO overconfidence. Overconfidence refers to an individual’s tendency to overestimate their own abilities and is made up of two major components: the “better-​than-​average” ’ effect, which leads an individual to believe that his or her skills and abilities are greater than those of the average person, and the “miscalibration” effect, which reflects individuals’ unjustifiable degree of certainty about a prediction given the state of the environment around them (Chen, Crossland, & Luo, 2015). In an influential early work, Malmendier and Tate (2005) suggested that overconfident CEOs were likely to destroy firm value because of overinvestment. In a follow-​up study they also found CEO overconfidence to be positively associated with the likelihood that a firm will initiate acquisitions (Malmendier & Tate, 2008). Similar to narcissism, CEO overconfidence has a positive relationship with both performance volatility (Hirshleifer, Low, & Teoh, 2012) and earnings management (Hsieh, Bedard, & Johnstone, 2014). Furthermore, firms with overconfident CEOs are more likely to increase their buildup of slack resources and issue fewer—​and lower—​dividend payouts than firms without overconfident CEOs (Deshmukh, Goel, & Howe, 2013). CEO overconfidence can also be associated with positive outcomes for the firm. For instance, CEO overconfidence has been shown to be positively associated with entrepreneurial orientation (Engelen, Neumann, & Schwens, 2015) and innovation (Galasso & Simcoe, 2011), especially in competitive industries. This is likely because overconfident CEOs are able to focus less on potential failure and more on the rewards of such outcomes. Overconfident CEOs also have a greater propensity to attract suppliers than CEOs who are not overconfident, and they receive a higher level of commitment from suppliers after contracts have been completed (Phua, Tham, & Wei, 2018). We expect that this stems from the spillover effect seen from having a strong belief in their firms’ future prospects. Hubris. Hayward and Hambrick (1997) spurred the study of CEO personality with an early empirical examination of CEO hubris. The topic of CEO hubris has since received substantial theoretical and methodological attention. Hiring CEOs with high

18    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms levels of hubris has traditionally been regarded as detrimental to the organization’s long-​ term survival and is therefore considered to be an unsustainable practice (Abatecola & Cristofaro, 2019). As such, scholars have focused on the negative outcomes that are associated with CEO hubris. For example, research indicates that CEO hubris shares a negative relationship with CSR activities (Tang et al., 2018)—​an outcome that is interestingly opposite that of narcissism—​and a positive association with corporate irresponsibility (Tang et al., 2015). In certain contexts, firms led by hubristic CEOs have been shown to exhibit inferior financial performance, but this relationship can be weakened when there is a high level of vigilance by the board of directors (Park et al., 2018). Thus, boards who appoint CEOs who are high in hubris should increase their monitoring efforts after doing so. Just like all dark traits of CEO personality, hubris has also been positively linked to risk-​taking activities (Li & Tang, 2010). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. The two remaining traits composing the Dark Triad—​ Machiavellianism and psychopathy—​ have thus far generated substantially less attention within the CEO personality literature. Machiavellianism refers to an individual’s possession of a duplicitous interpersonal style, which is often characterized by a cynical disregard for morality, taking pleasure in manipulating or deceiving others, and a focus on one’s own self-​interest and personal gain (Jones & Paulhus, 2009). Psychopaths, on the other hand, are prone to exhibit enduring antisocial behavior, possess a low level of empathy and remorse, and exhibit behaviors reflecting a reckless and erratic lifestyle (Rauthmann & Kolar, 2013). Although empirical examination of these traits has been very limited, Myung, Choi, and Kim (2017) did find evidence that CEO Machiavellianism and CEO psychopathy are negatively related to CSR activities. Moreover, a recent conceptual piece on the consequences of dark personality in CEOs speculated that organizations led by CEOs high in these traits are likely to experience destructive leadership and counterproductive work behaviors (Palmer, Holmes Jr, & Perrewé, 2020).

Five Factor and HEXACO Models of Personality Although the FFM and its variants have been the predominant model in personality psychology for four decades, they have only recently come into common usage in research on CEO personality. As noted above, these models are based on factor-​ analytic work of personality trait descriptors (i.e., adjectives) and represent the major dimensions of personality thought to be important for social interactions (Ashton et al., 2004; Goldberg, 1993).1 Specifically, these models assess the personality traits of extraversion, openness to experience (i.e., openness), conscientiousness, neuroticism (often inversely referred to as emotional stability), agreeableness, and humility. We feel that 1 Although frequently used with the assumption that they represent the entirety of personality, considerable research has demonstrated several other important personality factors (Paunonen & Jackson, 2000; Wood, Nye, & Saucier, 2010).

Scaling the Ivory Tower    19 it is important to recognize that while some researchers are prone to examine all traits within a given model in their studies (i.e., five for FFM and six for HEXACO), they may opt to develop a deeper focus in their theorizing and empirical analysis, instead using a subset of traits within the model. Extraversion. Among the FFM traits, scholars investigating CEO personality and its effects have tended to emphasize the role of extraversion most often. Individuals with high levels of extraversion are said to be confident, energetic, and excitement-​seeking (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Watson & Clark, 1997). Scholars suggest that CEO extraversion has an impact on several important organizational outcomes. For example, prior work has shown that extraversion has a strong relationship with risk. Specifically, it has a positive association with a firm’s expenditures on risk-​taking activities (Benischke, Martin, & Glaser, 2019) and the firm’s overall stock risk (Harrison et al., 2020). Furthermore, CEOs who are high in extraversion have a greater likelihood of initiating acquisitions, and these acquisitions are significantly larger than those completed by their less extraverted counterparts (Malhotra et al., 2018). Extraverted CEOs are also more likely to initiate strategic change (Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014). Moreover, because of their tendency to elicit such high positive emotionality (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Rusting & Larsen, 1997), they have been shown to receive higher analyst recommendations, ceteris paribus (Becker, Medjedovic, & Merkle, 2019). This inherent positive disposition also allows them to gain greater favor of their employees, leading to increased employee productivity and profitability (Wang & Chen, 2019). Openness to experience. Individuals high in openness are said to be creative, introspective, imaginative, resourceful, and insightful, signifying an appreciation for culture and intellect (McCrae, 1987; McCrae & Costa Jr, 1997). CEO openness is thought to positively impact organizational outcomes. For example, scholars have argued that CEO openness is positively associated with TMT behavioral integration, or the degree to which the TMT will engage in mutual or collaborative interactions, which subsequently results in greater firm performance (Araujo-​Cabrera, Suarez-​Acosta, & Aguiar-​ Quintana, 2017). This is likely because CEOs high in openness embrace adhocracy culture values (Giberson et al., 2009), have a higher propensity to seek creative solutions to problems, and exhibit a strong willingness to challenge the status quo (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010), thereby compelling the TMT to work together in a cohesive environment. Furthermore, CEOs high on openness tend to be curious by nature, leading them to seek market knowledge to a greater degree than those who are less open (Chollet et al., 2016), which may stem from their inherent attraction to novel information (McCrae, 1987). Unsurprisingly, CEO openness has been shown to be positively associated with learning in organizations (Han, Seok, & Kim, 2017). While openness has traditionally been construed as a positive trait for CEOs to have, there are also potentially negative repercussions for organizations to appoint CEOs who are high in the trait. For example, CEOs who are high in openness may have a propensity to increase strategic risk as their equity risk bearing also increases, which is likely because gain outcomes tend to hold more salience for open CEOs than the risks that are associated with securing these gains (Benischke et al., 2019).

20    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms Conscientiousness. Conscientiousness is defined as the tendency for an individual to be achievement-​oriented, cautious, deliberate, dependable, and self-​disciplined (McCrae & John, 1992). Prior research at the individual level has suggested that there is a strong, positive relationship between conscientiousness and job performance, especially when the task being performed is considered to be highly complex (Le et al., 2011). Applying these findings to the context of CEOs, conscientiousness is often linked to organizational conservatism. For example, because conscientious CEOs are often characterized by a tendency to embrace tradition and follow rules and conventions, they tend to be less inclined to engage in strategic risk-​taking activities because these activities are perceived as having uncertain returns (Benischke et al., 2019). This tendency to adhere to rules and conventions also means that CEOs who are high in conscientiousness are also rated as more ethical leaders (Kalshoven, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2011) and are considerably less likely to engage in financial fraud (Van Scotter & Roglio, 2018). The cautious aspects of conscientiousness likely play a role in findings suggesting that CEOs high in conscientiousness are less likely to initiate strategic change (Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014). That said, when CEOs high in conscientiousness do decide to pursue change, firm performance tends to increase (Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014). Enhanced firm performance can potentially be attributed to a CEO’s propensity to be achievement oriented (i.e., their desire to accomplish goals), even when constrained by challenging conditions (Judge et al., 2002). Conscientious CEOs are also thought to be more likely to closely monitor performance levels within the organization and ensure that negative deviation from desired performance is quickly addressed, thus resulting in higher shareholder returns (Harrison et al., 2020) and greater general firm performance (Colbert, Barrick, & Bradley, 2014). Neuroticism/​emotional stability. Neuroticism is reflective of an individual’s propensity to manifest negative emotional effects such as increased anxiety, depression, difficulty completing tasks, higher stress, and impulsiveness (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Harrison et al., 2020). Some scholars prefer to use the inverse measure of neuroticism to reflect an individual’s level of emotional stability. Prior research has suggested that neuroticism is strongly related to negative affect (Costa & McCrae, 1980; Rusting & Larsen, 1997). While possessing a lower level of neuroticism is a characteristic that generally distinguishes a CEO from other members of the TMT (Booth et al., 2016), neurotic CEOs who defy the odds and are able to attain the topmost role within an organization will often experience negative outcomes at the firm level. Specifically, prior research has suggested that CEO who are high in neuroticism tend to have a negative indirect effect on both collective organizational commitment and organizational performance because of their inability to model transformational leadership (Colbert et al., 2014). Neurotic CEOs have also been shown to be reluctant to engage in strategic flexibility, thereby negatively impacting performance outcomes (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010). CEO neuroticism has a positive effect on firm stock risk (Harrison et al., 2020). This relationship likely manifests itself because neurotic CEOs create a negative culture within the focal

Scaling the Ivory Tower    21 organization and among the TMT. Furthermore, some research has suggested that CEO neuroticism is negatively associated with social capital and the ability to plan ahead (Anand & Poggi, 2018). This suggests that CEOs characterized by high levels of neuroticism are not equipped with the necessary emotional abilities needed to effectively manage the high-​stakes decisions and relationship demands necessary to run a firm. Agreeableness. Individuals who are high in agreeableness tend to be altruistic, cooperative, empathetic, gentle, kind, modest, and trusting (John & Srivastava, 1999). Agreeableness is often overlooked—​or has been found to produce null results—​by scholars in the CEO personality literature. It is possible that this reflects the mixed effects on organizational outcomes that agreeableness may contribute to. For example, CEOs high in agreeableness may be less likely to assert their perspective or make hard decisions in order to avoid conflict (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001). That said, CEO agreeableness has been shown to be positively related to employee productivity (Wang & Chen, 2019), suggesting that these individuals may be more effective in circumstances that allow them the opportunity to interact with people in a motivational capacity, thereby justifying their appointment to the firm’s top position. Agreeable CEOs are also thought to be less likely to engage in objectionable activities such as fraud, sexual misconduct, and other forms of unethical misconduct (Van Scotter & Roglio, 2018). In terms of strategic decisions, highly agreeable CEOs have been argued to be less likely to initiate, execute, and persist in strategic change efforts (Herrmann & Nadkarni, 2014). That said, other research has shown that extremely low levels of CEO agreeableness are also associated with less strategic flexibility (Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010), suggesting that moderate levels of CEO agreeableness are associated with higher levels of success. Humility. While not included in the FFM, humility is a critical component of the HEXACO model of personality and has received a high level of attention in the fields of management and psychology. Humility has been argued to have three defining themes within the organizational context. These themes include (1) a willingness to obtain accurate self-​knowledge, (2) a tendency to keep an open mind and continuously learn and improve, and (3) an appreciation of others’ strengths and contributions (Ou, Waldman, & Peterson, 2018). As such, humble CEOs are more likely to display empowering leadership behaviors, which subsequently lead to greater work engagement, affective commitment, and job performance among employees (Ou et al., 2014). At the TMT level, CEO humility is positively associated with outcomes such as engagement, cohesiveness, collaboration, consensus, and attitude (Toscano, Price, & Scheepers, 2018). Firms led by humble CEOs have also been shown to outperform their industry peers because they tend to be issued lower market expectations from financial analysts, therefore making it substantially easier for the firm to attain performance benchmarks and meet analyst expectations (Petrenko et al., 2019). Moreover, humble CEOs foster an innovative culture, which allows their organizations to achieve increased levels of innovative performance as well (Zhang et al., 2017).

22    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms

Other Forms of CEO Personality Beyond the traits captured by the Dark Triad, FFM, and HEXACO, a number of other personality traits have been shown to impact organizational decision-​making and strategic actions. Charisma. In their description of charismatic leaders, House and Baetz (1979: 399) argued that “by the force of their personal abilities [charismatic individuals] are capable of having profound and extraordinary effects on followers.” Charismatic leaders are said to generate excitement and inspiration among their followers, and persuade followers to believe that they are capable of accomplishing difficult tasks through the strong emotional ties that charismatic leaders cultivate with their followers (Bass, 1985). Within the context of CEOs, charisma has been shown to be a significant determinant of CEO selection, such that those high in charisma are more likely to be selected CEO (Jacquart & Antonakis, 2015), and is positively associated with CEO pay (Tosi et al., 2004). Although many scholars have reported mixed results in their attempts to directly link CEO charisma to firm performance (e.g., Agle et al., 2006; Waldman, Javidan, & Varella, 2004). Boehm et al. (2015) show that it is indirectly related to firm performance through organizational identity strength. Looking beyond firm performance outcomes, Wowak et al. (2016) found that a positive relationship exists between CEO charisma and CSR, and that this relationship grows stronger as CEO tenure increases. This is likely because charismatic CEOs favor initiatives and policies attempting to accomplish social goals (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Core self-​evaluation. An individual’s core self-​evaluation (CSE) consists of dimensions such as self-​esteem, self-​efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). CEOs rated as being high on CSE characteristics have been shown to exhibit behaviors that are in line with transformational leadership and contingent reward leadership (Resick et al., 2009). Firms led by CEOs characterized by high CSE tend to report higher levels of entrepreneurial orientation, and this relationship becomes even stronger when the firm is operating in a dynamic environment (Simsek, Heavey, & Veiga, 2010). CEO CSE may also have an indirect effect on firm performance through strategic choices because CEOs characterized by high CSEs see strategic processes in a unique system relative to other individuals (Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). This may explain why CEO CSEs have been positively related to an organization’s dynamic capabilities (i.e., their marketing, R&D, and production capabilities) and their ability to effectively implement these capabilities in practice (von den Driesch et al., 2015). Liberalism. Burris (2001) defines CEO liberalism as the degree to which he or she identifies with the Democratic Party (specifically within the context of US politics). CEO liberalism has a positive relationship with CSR activities (Gupta, Briscoe, & Hambrick, 2017), and this relationship is especially prevalent among CEOs who have a significant amount of power, even when their firms experience low levels of recent performance (Chin, Hambrick, & Treviño, 2013). Furthermore, perhaps because of the collectivist philosophies which are often preached by the Democratic Party, liberal CEOs

Scaling the Ivory Tower    23 have been shown to exhibit greater evenhandedness in subunit resource allocation, and this relationship is exacerbated when the organization as a whole has liberal tendencies (Gupta, Briscoe, & Hambrick, 2018). Because political ideology represents a continuum, scholars have expressed that the opposite results can be found in CEOs who are more conservative in nature. Provocativeness and submissiveness. Research using CEO provocativeness and submissiveness is relatively nascent. Provocativeness is viewed as the degree to which an individual is viewed as threatening to the point that others may be provoked to “direct aggressive action against the perceived source” (Aquino & Bradfield, 2000: 527). Submissive individuals are perceived as being weak or having low self-​esteem (Egan & Perry, 1998), and attempt to avoid conflict if at all possible (Aquino, 2000). These two personality traits, though largely different from each other, have interestingly been shown to have similar positive relationships with the likelihood that a firm is attacked by its competitors (Hill, Recendes, & Ridge, 2019), and is highly significant whether the attack originates from pricing, product, marketing, or expansion actions.

Current Limitations and Future Directions Upon our review of the literature, we identified a number of research areas that need further examination and refinement. First, little has been done to understand whether curvilinear effects exist for CEO personality (see Nadkarni & Herrmann, 2010 for one example). Scholars have suggested that there is the potential to have “too much of a good thing” for many constructs used in management literature (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013), indicating that there may be an optimal level for certain personality traits in the context of CEOs. Interaction effects is another critical area that has received little attention yet would greatly benefit our knowledge of how personality works. For example, can the negative effects of certain dark traits be offset by possessing high levels of other traits? Specifically, can narcissistic CEOs overcome the stigmas associated with this trait by also being charismatic? Another potential avenue for future research is to examine personality matching. While upper echelons scholars have generally circumvented this approach (see Shi, Zhang, & Hoskisson, 2019 for an exception), theoretically and empirically applying such an approach may prove to greatly contribute to the extant literature. For instance, do CEOs favor those in their top management teams with compatible personality fits by giving them higher compensation than those who have a strong misfit in terms of personality? Instead of focusing on individual personality traits of a CEO, scholars may consider fuzzy sets to be an additional area for future research. For example, upon examining personality profiles of entrepreneurs, Obschonka et al. (2013) found that

24    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms individuals who are both high in openness and low in neuroticism are most likely to be self-​employed. Construct redundancy and internal validity are ongoing issues that have plagued CEO personality research. For example, constructs such as arrogance have been shown to be a fundamental attribute of narcissists, however, some studies have used arrogance as a distinct construct (e.g., Toscano et al., 2018), causing confusion as to whether this trait stands on its own or should be considered a facet of another trait. Furthermore, upon our examination of studies relating to CEO narcissism, we found 14 unique measures of the construct. We also believe that the CEO personality literature should consider integrating alternative theoretical frameworks beyond upper echelons theory or agency theory. Finally, in line with previous advances in the personality psychology literature (Lucas & Donnellan, 2011; Wagner, Lüdtke, & Robitzsch, 2019), as well as more recent contributions in management (Tasselli, Kilduff, & Landis, 2018), we believe that the CEO personality literature should consider the existence of CEO personality change. While much of the literature considers personality traits to be static and exogenous, recent findings in the personality psychology literature suggest that personality may be dynamic throughout adulthood, especially when an individual experiences a life-​ altering event.

Conclusion The empirical study of CEO personality has extended over the past two decades, but it can be considered an emerging area of interest in a number of organizational disciplines. We believe that there are many opportunities to push this research stream forward, especially as technology and access to CEO personality data continue to develop and improve, and that these opportunities are both theoretical and empirical in nature. To that end, the results presented in this review can be seen as preliminary, but also important as a foundation for future research. We would encourage scholars interested in investigating CEO personality and its impact to more fully embrace the established personality literature and the diversity of models and measures contained therein in order to more fully represent the many aspects of personality moving forward. We argue that doing so will enable both scholars and practitioners to better understand the decision-​ making processes of executives and how their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors may affect an organization’s internal and external stakeholders.

References Abatecola, G., & Cristofaro, M. (2019). Ingredients of sustainable CEO behaviour: Theory and practice. Sustainability, 11(7), 1950. Agle, B. R., Nagarajan, N. J., Sonnenfeld, J. A., & Srinivasan, D. (2006). Does CEO charisma matter? An empirical analysis of the relationships among organizational performance,

Scaling the Ivory Tower    25 environmental uncertainty, and top management team perceptions of CEO charisma. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 161–​174. Al-​Shammari, M., Rasheed, A., & Al-​Shammari, H. A. (2019). CEO narcissism and corporate social responsibility: Does CEO narcissism affect CSR focus? Journal of Business Research, 104, 106–​117. American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-​5®). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Anand, P., & Poggi, A. (2018). Do social resources matter? Social capital, personality traits, and the ability to plan ahead. Kyklos, 71(3), 343–​373. Aquino, K. (2000). Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: The effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26(2), 171–​193. Aquino, K., & Bradfield, M. (2000). Perceived victimization in the workplace: The role of situational factors and victim characteristics. Organization Science, 11(5), 525–​537. Araujo-​Cabrera, Y., Suarez-​Acosta, M. A., & Aguiar-​Quintana, T. (2017). Exploring the influence of CEO extraversion and openness to experience on firm performance: The mediating role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 24(2), 201–​215. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Goldberg, L. R. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English personality-​descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 707. Bachrach, D. G., Patel, P., Guedes, M. J., & Harms, P. (2021). CEO narcissism, top management team transactive memory systems, and firm performance: An upper echelons perspective on CEO admiration and rivalry narcissism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(1), 61–​76. Back, M. D., Küfner, A. C., Dufner, M., Gerlach, T. M., Rauthmann, J. F., & Denissen, J. J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(6), 1013–​1037. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Becker, J., Medjedovic, J., & Merkle, C. (2019). The effect of CEO extraversion on analyst forecasts: Stereotypes and similarity bias. Financial Review, 54(1), 133–​164. Benischke, M. H., Martin, G. P., & Glaser, L. (2019). CEO equity risk bearing and strategic risk taking: The moderating effect of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal, 40(1), 153–​177. Boehm, S. A., Dwertmann, D. J., Bruch, H., & Shamir, B. (2015). The missing link? Investigating organizational identity strength and transformational leadership climate as mechanisms that connect CEO charisma with firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 156–​171. Booth, T., Murray, A. L., Overduin, M., Matthews, M., & Furnham, A. (2016). Distinguishing CEOs from top level management: A profile analysis of individual differences, career paths and demographics. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31(2), 205–​216. Brennan, N. M., & Conroy, J. P. (2013). Executive hubris: The case of a bank CEO. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(2), 172–​195. Burris, V. (2001). The two faces of capital: Corporations and individual capitalists as political actors. American Sociological Review, 66(3), 361–​381. Busenbark, J. R., Krause, R., Boivie, S., & Graffin, S. D. (2016). Toward a configurational perspective on the CEO: A review and synthesis of the management literature. Journal of Management, 42(1), 234–​268.

26    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms Capalbo, F., Frino, A., Lim, M. Y., Mollica, V., & Palumbo, R. (2018). The impact of CEO narcissism on earnings management. Abacus, 54(2), 210–​226. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 351–​386. Chen, G., Crossland, C., & Luo, S. (2015). Making the same mistake all over again: CEO overconfidence and corporate resistance to corrective feedback. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1513–​1535. Chin, M., Hambrick, D. C., & Treviño, L. K. (2013). Political ideologies of CEOs: The influence of executives’ values on corporate social responsibility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 197–​232. Chollet, B., Geraudel, M., Khedhaouria, A., & Mothe, C. (2016). Market knowledge as a function of CEOs’ personality: A fuzzy set approach. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2567–​2573. Colbert, A. E., Barrick, M. R., & Bradley, B. H. (2014). Personality and leadership composition in top management teams: Implications for organizational effectiveness. Personnel Psychology, 67(2), 351–​387. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-​being: happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–​50. Cragun, O. R., Olsen, K. J., & Wright, P. M. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: A review and meta-​analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46(6), 908–​936. Deshmukh, S., Goel, A. M., & Howe, K. M. (2013). CEO overconfidence and dividend policy. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 22(3), 440–​463. Egan, S. K., & Perry, D. G. (1998). Does low self-​regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 299–​309. Engelen, A., Neumann, C., & Schwens, C. (2015). “Of course I can”: The effect of CEO overconfidence on entrepreneurially oriented firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1137–​1160. Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-​analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557. Galasso, A., & Simcoe, T. S. (2011). CEO overconfidence and innovation. Management Science, 57(8), 1469–​1484. Giberson, T. R., Resick, C. J., Dickson, M. W., Mitchelson, J. K., Randall, K. R., & Clark, M. A. (2009). Leadership and organizational culture: Linking CEO characteristics to cultural values. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(2), 123–​137. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48(1), 26–​34. Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D. A., Gaddis, B. H., & Fraley, R. C. (2015). Narcissism and leadership: A meta‐analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68(1), 1–​47. Gupta, A., Briscoe, F., & Hambrick, D. C. (2017). Red, blue, and purple firms: Organizational political ideology and corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 38(5), 1018–​1040.

Scaling the Ivory Tower    27 Gupta, A., Briscoe, F., & Hambrick, D. C. (2018). Evenhandedness in resource allocation: Its relationship with CEO ideology, organizational discretion, and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1848–​1868. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–​206. Han, M.-​p., Seok, B.-​i., & Kim, J.-​h. (2017). Effects of six personality factors of CEOs at small and medium-​sized enterprises on performance in business management: Focusing on learning and growth. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 97–​128. Harms, P., & Sherman, R. A. (2021). What falls outside of the Big Five? Darkness, derailers, and beyond. In D. Wood, S. Reed, P. Harms, & A. Slaughter (Eds.), Measuring and modeling persons and situations (pp. 33–​68). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Harrison, J., Thurgood, G. R., Boivie, S., & Pfarrer, M. (2020). Perception is reality: How CEOs’ observed personality influences market perceptions of firm risk and shareholder returns. Academy of Management Journal, 63(4), 1166–​1195. Harrison, J., Thurgood, G. R., Boivie, S., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2019). Measuring CEO personality: Developing, validating, and testing a linguistic tool. Strategic Management Journal, 40(8), 1116–​1330. Hayward, M. L., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 103–​127. Herrmann, P., & Nadkarni, S. (2014). Managing strategic change: The duality of CEO personality. Strategic Management Journal, 35(9), 1318–​1342. Hill, A. D., Recendes, T., & Ridge, J. W. (2019). Second‐order effects of CEO characteristics: How rivals’ perceptions of CEOs as submissive and provocative precipitate competitive attacks. Strategic Management Journal, 40(5), 809–​835. Hiller, N. J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Conceptualizing executive hubris: the role of (hyper‐) core self‐evaluations in strategic decision‐making. Strategic Management Journal, 26(4), 297–​319. Hirshleifer, D., Low, A., & Teoh, S. H. (2012). Are overconfident CEOs better innovators? The Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1457–​1498. House, R. J., & Baetz, M. L. (1979). Leadership: Some empirical generalizations and new research directions. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 341–​ 423). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hsieh, T. S., Bedard, J. C., & Johnstone, K. M. (2014). CEO overconfidence and earnings management during shifting regulatory regimes. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 41(9–​ 10), 1243–​1268. Jacquart, P., & Antonakis, J. (2015). When does charisma matter for top-​level leaders? Effect of attributional ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1051–​1074. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-​Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–​138). New York: Guilford Press. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2009). Machiavellianism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 93–​108). New York, NY. Judd, J. S., Olsen, K. J., & Stekelberg, J. (2017). How do auditors respond to CEO narcissism? Evidence from external audit fees. Accounting Horizons, 31(4), 33–​52. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2011). Ethical leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349–​366.

28    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms Landay, K., Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2019). Shall we serve the dark lords? A meta-​analytic review of psychopathy and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(1), 183–​196. Le, H., Oh, I.-​S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 113–​133. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(2), 326–​336. Li, J., & Tang, Y. (2010). CEO hubris and firm risk taking in China: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 45–​68. Love, E. G., Lim, J., & Bednar, M. K. (2017). The face of the firm: The influence of CEOs on corporate reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 60(4), 1462–​1481. Lucas, R. E., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Personality development across the life span: longitudinal analyses with a national sample from Germany. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 847. Maccoby, M. (2000). Narcissistic leaders: The incredible pros, the inevitable cons. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 68–​78. Malhotra, S., Reus, T. H., Zhu, P., & Roelofsen, E. M. (2018). The acquisitive nature of extraverted CEOs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63(2), 370–​408. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The Journal of Finance, 60(6), 2661–​2700. Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2008). Who makes acquisitions? CEO overconfidence and the market’s reaction. Journal of Financial Economics, 89(1), 20–​43. Marquez-​Illescas, G., Zebedee, A. A., & Zhou, L. (2019). Hear me write: Does CEO narcissism affect disclosure? Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 401–​417. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6), 1258. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–​516. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–​215. Myung, J. K., Choi, Y. H., & Kim, J. D. (2017). Effects of CEOs’ negative traits on corporate social responsibility. Sustainability, 9(4), 543. Nadkarni, S., & Herrmann, P. (2010). CEO personality, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: The case of the Indian business process outsourcing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1050–​1073. Obschonka, M., Schmitt-​Rodermund, E., Silbereisen, R. K., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2013). The regional distribution and correlates of an entrepreneurship-​prone personality profile in the United States, Germany, and the United Kingdom: A socioecological perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(1), 104. O’Reilly III, C. A., Doerr, B., & Chatman, J. A. (2018). “See you in court”: How CEO narcissism increases firms’ vulnerability to lawsuits. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(3), 365–​378. Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Kinicki, A. J., Waldman, D. A., Xiao, Z., & Song, L. J. (2014). Humble chief executive officers’ connections to top management team integration and middle managers’ responses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59(1), 34–​72. Ou, A. Y., Waldman, D. A., & Peterson, S. J. (2018). Do humble CEOs matter? An examination of CEO humility and firm outcomes. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1147–​1173.

Scaling the Ivory Tower    29 Palmer, J. C., Holmes Jr, R. M., & Perrewé, P. L. (2020). The cascading effects of CEO Dark Triad personality on subordinate behavior and firm performance: A multilevel theoretical model. Group & Organization Management, 45(2), 143–​180. Park, J.-​H., Kim, C., Chang, Y. K., Lee, D.-​H., & Sung, Y.-​D. (2018). CEO hubris and firm performance: Exploring the moderating roles of CEO power and board vigilance. Journal of Business Ethics, 147(4), 919–​933. Patel, P. C., & Cooper, D. (2014). The harder they fall, the faster they rise: Approach and avoidance focus in narcissistic CEOs. Strategic Management Journal, 35(10), 1528–​1540. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–​563. Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the big five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68(5), 821–​835. Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Recendes, T., & Chandler, J. A. (2019). The case for humble expectations: CEO humility and market performance. Strategic Management Journal, 40(12), 1938–​1964. Petrenko, O. V., Aime, F., Ridge, J., & Hill, A. (2016). Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37(2), 262–​279. Phua, K., Tham, T. M., & Wei, C. (2018). Are overconfident CEOs better leaders? Evidence from stakeholder commitments. Journal of Financial Economics, 127(3), 519–​545. Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-​much-​of-​a-​good-​thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–​338. Rauthmann, J. F., & Kolar, G. P. (2013). Positioning the Dark Triad in the interpersonal circumplex: The friendly-​ dominant narcissist, hostile-​ submissive Machiavellian, and hostile-​dominant psychopath? Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 622–​627. Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-​side and the dark-​side of CEO personality: examining core self-​evaluations, narcissism, transformational leadership, and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365. Rusting, C. L., & Larsen, R. J. (1997). Extraversion, neuroticism, and susceptibility to positive and negative affect: A test of two theoretical models. Personality and Individual Differences, 22(5), 607–​612. Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-​concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–​594. Shi, W., Zhang, Y., & Hoskisson, R. E. (2019). Examination of CEO–​CFO social interaction through language style matching: Outcomes for the CFO and the organization. Academy of Management Journal, 62(2), 383–​414. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., & Veiga, J. F. (2010). The impact of CEO core self‐evaluation on the firm’s entrepreneurial orientation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 110–​119. Smith, M. B., Hill, A. D., Wallace, J. C., Recendes, T., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Upsides to dark and downsides to bright personality: A multidomain review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 44(1), 191–​217. Tang, Y., Mack, D. Z., & Chen, G. (2018). The differential effects of CEO narcissism and hubris on corporate social responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 39(5), 1370–​1387. Tang, Y., Qian, C., Chen, G., & Shen, R. (2015). How CEO hubris affects corporate social (ir)responsibility. Strategic Management Journal, 36(9), 1338–​1357. Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Landis, B. (2018). Personality change: Implications for organizational behavior. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 467–​493.

30    C.J. Borgholthaus and P.D. Harms Toscano, R., Price, G., & Scheepers, C. (2018). The impact of CEO arrogance on top management team attitudes. European Business Review, 30(6), 630–​644. Tosi, H. L., Misangyi, V. F., Fanelli, A., Waldman, D. A., & Yammarino, F. J. (2004). CEO charisma, compensation, and firm performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 405–​420. Van Scotter, J. R., & Roglio, K. D. D. (2018). CEO bright and dark personality: Effects on ethical misconduct. Journal of Business Ethics, 164, 1–​25. von den Driesch, T., Da Costa, M. E. S., Flatten, T. C., & Brettel, M. (2015). How CEO experience, personality, and network affect firms’ dynamic capabilities. European Management Journal, 33(4), 245–​256. Wagner, J., Lüdtke, O., & Robitzsch, A. (2019). Does personality become more stable with age? Disentangling state and trait effects for the big five across the life span using local structural equation modeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 666. Waldman, D. A., Javidan, M., & Varella, P. (2004). Charismatic leadership at the strategic level: A new application of upper echelons theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(3), 355–​380. Wales, W. J., Patel, P. C., & Lumpkin, G. (2013). In pursuit of greatness: CEO narcissism, entrepreneurial orientation, and firm performance variance. Journal of Management Studies, 50(6), 1041–​1069. Wang, S., & Chen, X. (2019). Recognizing CEO personality and its impact on business performance: Mining linguistic cues from social media. Information & Management, 57(5), 103173. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1997). Extraversion and its positive emotional core. In Hogan, R., Johnson, J, & Briggs, S. (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 767–​793). London, UK: Academic Press. Wood, D. (2015). Testing the lexical hypothesis: Are socially important traits more densely reflected in the English lexicon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 317. Wood, D., Nye, C. D., & Saucier, G. (2010). Identification and measurement of a more comprehensive set of person-​descriptive trait markers from the English lexicon. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 258–​272. Wowak, A. J., Mannor, M. J., Arrfelt, M., & McNamara, G. (2016). Earthquake or glacier? How CEO charisma manifests in firm strategy over time. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 586–​603. Zhang, H., Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, H. (2017). CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(5), 585–​604. Zhu, D. H., & Chen, G. (2015). Narcissism, director selection, and risk‐taking spending. Strategic Management Journal, 36(13), 2075–​2098.

chapter 3

The Perc e i v e d C ontroll abil i t y of t h e B ig Five Pers ona l i t y Traits at Work Mallory A. McCord and Bethany Westerberg

The Big Five perspective on personality is the most widely accepted and supported taxonomy of personality (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008), and includes extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Goldberg, 1990). Extraversion is characterized by sociability, assertiveness, and sensation seeking. Agreeableness encompasses characteristics such as being trusting, sympathetic, and polite. Conscientiousness individuals tend to be dependable, disciplined, and orderly. Neuroticism reflects the tendency to experience negative emotions, including self-​consciousness and insecurity. Finally, openness to experience captures those who tend to be creative and imaginative (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Goldberg, 1990). The Big Five have been prolifically studied in relation to nearly all possible work outcomes, from job attitudes and performance to coping mechanisms and work family conflict (Wilmot, 2017). Indeed, conscientiousness is agreed to be the strongest and most consistent Big Five personality predictor of job performance criteria across contexts (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001). However, the remaining personality traits predict “some criteria for some jobs” (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001: 22). In combination with the relatively frequent use of personality in human resource decisions like selection and promotion (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006) and the tendency for human resources professionals to use intuitive procedures (Highhouse, 2008), it is important to consider factors that may make the use of formal or informal measures of personality in the workplace to be less valid.

32    M.A. McCord and B. Westerberg Drawing on the tripartite view of bias (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008), the justification suppression model of prejudice (JSM; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), and Funder’s realistic accuracy model (RAM; Funder, 2012), we propose that assumptions about the controllability of the Big Five personality traits at work could contribute to unfair/​negative treatment of otherwise qualified and well-​ performing individuals in the workplace. Although one’s overall personality is generally perceived to be more controllable than intelligence or abilities (Spinath et al., 2003), the relative perceived controllability of the Big Five personality traits remains unknown. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to assess the perceived controllability of the Big Five personality traits at work.

Perceived Controllability of the Big Five Personality Traits The tripartite view of bias indicates that prejudice is a proximal cause of associated behaviors and acts as a mediator between stereotypes and discriminatory behavior (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008). Prejudice refers to “a negative evaluation of a social group or a negative evaluation of an individual that is significantly based on the individual’s group membership” (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003: 414), whereas discrimination refers to “when persons in a ‘social category’ . . . are put at a disadvantage in the workplace relative to other groups with comparable potential or proven success” (Dipboye & Halverson, 2004: 131). Scholars suggest that personality-​ based prejudice can contribute to unfair/​negative treatment that targets employees with certain personality traits (i.e., personality discrimination), ranging from rude interpersonal treatment to being overlooked for opportunities the individual deserves (McCord & Joseph, 2020; Stone-​Romero, 2005). The JSM (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) suggest that such prejudice and associated discrimination may stem from the perceived controllability of the Big Five personality traits. In other words, prejudice and discrimination against a particular trait are more likely if the trait is thought to be controllable. This is because perceptions of controllability can reduce feelings of empathy toward the target (i.e., suppression effect) and instead increase target blaming toward a target who is “choosing” to behave in a way that is counter to contextually desirable personality traits (i.e., justification effect; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Importantly, given that personality isn’t a protected class (EEOC, 2022) and isn’t included in organizational antidiscrimination policies, there are few norms that would suppress personality discrimination (Ajzen, 1985). Funder’s RAM (Funder, 2012) poses that visibility contributes to the ease with which others detect and accurately perceive personality traits. High visibility traits are those with externally expressed behaviors, whereas low visibility traits reflect internal

The Big Five Personality Traits at Work    33 thoughts and feelings. Thus, we posit that traits which are more behaviorally visible will be perceived to be more controllable (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Extraversion and conscientiousness are the most visible Big Five personality traits, although extraversion is considered the most highly visible trait with the highest level of rater consensus across types of raters (Connelly & Ones, 2010). This is because extraverted characteristics, such as being talkative, energetic, and sociable (John & Srivastava, 1999), are expressed as very noticeable, outward behaviors (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002). Individuals who are higher in conscientiousness tend to be higher in characteristics such as being organized, careful, and thorough (John & Srivastava, 1999). Consisting mostly of behaviors (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002), but more so in how the individual creates the environment around them rather than direct behaviors (Connelly & Ones, 2010), conscientiousness follows extraversion in rater consensus (Connelly & Ones, 2010). In other words, conscientiousness can be considered a highly visible trait, but less so than extraversion. The remaining three Big Five personality traits have similar levels of rater consensus (Connelly & Ones, 2010) but differ in behavioral content that would be outwardly visible and detectable to others (Funder, 2012) and so contribute to perceptions of controllability (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Individuals who are higher in agreeableness tend to be higher in characteristics like being helpful, considerate, and cooperative (John & Srivastava, 1999). Such characteristics tend to reflect a mixture of behaviors, affect, and cognitions (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002). As such, agreeableness is a less visible trait than extraversion or conscientiousness. Neuroticism and openness to experience are thought to be the least visible of the Big Five personality traits because rather than outward behaviors, these traits largely reflect affect (e.g., anxiety, depression, irritability; John & Srivastava, 1999) and cognitions (e.g., imaginative, curious, interested; John & Srivastava, 1999), respectively (Pytlik Zillig, Hemenover, & Dienstbier, 2002). In sum, the relative visibility of the Big Five personality traits suggests the following regarding the relative perceived controllability of each: Hypothesis: Extraversion will be perceived as the most controllable, followed by conscientiousness, then agreeableness, with openness to experience and neuroticism being the least controllable.

Method Participants and Procedure A priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power, with an expected small to medium effect size of 0.15, alpha of 0.05, and power of 0.80. This indicated a need for 55 participants to detect a significant effect.

34    M.A. McCord and B. Westerberg

Sample 1 Participants were recruited by email from alumni of a Midwestern university and were required to be at least 18 years old, working in a job in the United States for at least one year, and working at least 20 hours per week. Participants who did not correctly answer three attention check items in the online survey (e.g., I can run two miles in two minutes) were excluded (Meade & Craig, 2012). The final sample of 101 participants (71% women, 96% White) were 38.88 years old on average (SD =​11.79). For compensation, participants were entered into a raffle for one of 50 $25 Amazon.com gift cards. The data were collected as part of a larger study on the workplace.

Sample 2 Participants were recruited from Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and were required to be at least 18 years old, working at least 30 hours per week in the United States in a job outside of MTurk.1 Participants who did not correctly answer two attention check items in the online survey (e.g., Please select “sometimes” for this item) were excluded (Meade & Craig, 2012). The final sample of 282 participants (45% women, 79% White) were 39.39 years old (SD =​10.85). Participants were compensated with $4. These data were collected as part of a larger study on the workplace, independent from Sample 1.

Measures Perceived Controllability The items were based on the 30 NEO PI-​R facets and their associated trait adjectives (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Participants were asked: “Please indicate to what extent each of the following is controllable or changeable in the workplace. For example, for the term ‘emotional,’ to what extent do you think ‘How emotional you are’ is controllable or changeable at work?” Sample items include “talkative” (extraversion), “forgiving” (agreeableness), “efficient” (conscientiousness), “irritable” (neuroticism), and “curious” (openness). Participants responded using a 1 (“Not at all controllable”) to 5 (“Extremely controllable”) response scale. Each Big Five trait was assessed with six adjectives. Scores were calculated by averaging the responses to the six items for each Big Five trait. The full measure is presented in the appendix.

Results Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, and bivariate correlations are reported in Table 3.1 for both samples. Across both samples and the five traits, mean scores of perceived

1 

We thank Dr. Gargi Sawhney for her assistance in collecting data for Sample 2.

The Big Five Personality Traits at Work    35 Table 3.1 Correlations, descriptive statistics, and internal consistency reliabilities M1

SD1

1

1. Extraversion

3.65

0.71

2. Agreeableness

3.82

2

3

4

5

.80 (.81) .70**

.60**

.68**

.77*

0.85

.65**

.86 (.77)

.74**

.66**

.60**

.70**

.79 (.80)

.56**

.45**

3. Conscientiousness

3.87

0.77

.56**

4. Neuroticism

3.29

0.84

.61**

.59**

.64**

.85 (.82) .70**

0.91

.55**

.55**

.43**

.59**

.91 (.83)

M2

3.56

3.82

4.03

3.26

3.30

SD2

0.76

0.73

0.75

0.83

0.84

5. Openness

3.32

Note: Sample 1 N =​101. Sample 2 N =​282–​283. Sample 1 is presented below the diagonal. Sample 2 is presented above the diagonal. Cronbach’s alpha is presented on the diagonal with Sample 2 within parentheses.

controllability suggest that the characteristics associated with these traits were thought to be somewhat to moderately controllable (i.e., average scores between 3 and 4). To assess Hypothesis 1, in Sample 1, a repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse-​ Geisser correction indicated ratings of perceived controllability differed significantly between the traits being evaluated (F (3.54, 354.21) =​26.73, p < -​0.001). Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that conscientiousness (M =​3.87, SD =​0.77) was rated as significantly more controllable than extraversion (M =​3.65, SD =​0.71, p < 0.05), neuroticism (M =​3.30, SD =​0.84, p < 0.05), and openness to experience (M =​3.32, SD =​0.91, p < 0.001). Further, agreeableness was rated as significantly more controllable than neuroticism (p < 0.001) and openness to experience (p < 0.001). Finally, extraversion was rated as significantly more controllable than neuroticism (p < 0.001) and openness to experience (p < 0.001). Using the same analyses, results from Sample 2 also indicated that the trait being evaluated significantly impacted the participants’ ratings of perceived controllability (F (3.17, 889.70) =​142.05, p < 0.001). Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed a nearly identical pattern to that in Sample 1 wherein conscientiousness (M =​4.03, SD =​0.75) was rated as significantly more controllable than extraversion (M =​3.56, SD =​0.76, p < 0.001), agreeableness (M =​3.82, SD =​0.73, p < 0.001), openness to experience (M =​3.29, SD =​0.84, p < 0.001), and neuroticism (M =​3.26, SD =​0.83, p < 0.001). Further, agreeableness was rated as significantly more controllable than extraversion (p < 0.001), openness to experience (p < 0.001) and neuroticism (p < 0.001). Finally, extraversion was rated as significantly more controllable than openness to experience (p < 0.001) and neuroticism (p < 0.001). These results are visually presented in Figure 3.1. In summary, Hypothesis 1 was not supported in either sample.

36    M.A. McCord and B. Westerberg 4.25

Perceived Controllability

4

3.75

3.5

3.25

3 E

A

C

N

O

Personality Trait Being Rated Sample 1

Sample 2

Figure 3.1  Mean perceptions of controllability for the Big Five personality traits

Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which working individuals perceive the Big Five personality traits to be controllable in the work setting. These perceptions were compared to determine if certain traits are perceived to be more controllable than others. Across two independent samples of working adults, all five personality traits were rated as being, on average, between somewhat and moderately controllable. Further, conscientiousness tended to be perceived as the most controllable trait, whereas neuroticism and openness to experience the least controllable in the workplace.

Implications and Future Directions The results of this study provide a promising first look at a potential contributor to prejudice and discrimination in the workplace and thus have several important implications that can inspire future research. First, although our exact proposed rank ordering of perceived controllability of the Big Five traits was not supported, the results were very similar: only conscientiousness and extraversion were reversed, whereas the remaining three traits were as predicted. These results lend support to the supposition that traits which are more behaviorally visible will be perceived to be more controllable (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). However, the importance of conscientiousness in the workplace setting (Barrick et al., 2001) may have brought this trait to the forefront of

The Big Five Personality Traits at Work    37 perceived controllability over extraversion, despite extraversion being more behaviorally visible. This suggests that context is important when considering the perceived controllability of the Big Five traits. Future work on the topic with context as a moderator (e.g., workplace; school; home) might unveil other important differences. From a methodology standpoint, triangulation of results across measurement methods would provide further validity evidence. In the present study, perceived controllability of the Big Five traits were assessed using items adapted from the 30 NEO PI-​R facets and their associated trait adjectives (Costa & McCrae, 1992). An adjective-​ based measure is the most logical for assessing perceived controllability (e.g., asking if being helpful is controllable makes more logical sense than asking if believing others have good intentions is controllable). Although the pattern of perceived controllability was nearly identical across two independent samples of workers, confirming the results using other personality inventories would add to the validity of the findings. In addition, a contextualized measure of perceived controllability of the Big Five traits that is specifically for the workplace may provide clearer insight into the construct and better predictive validity with work outcomes (Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012). For example, being adventurous, a characteristic of extraversion, is likely less relevant in the workplace than being assertive, although again, this may depend on the job context. Altogether, future work that takes these measurement considerations into account would help build a more complete picture of the topic. Finally, from a practical perspective, the results have implications for the future of diversity and inclusion in the workplace. Together, the tripartite view of bias (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Talaska et al., 2008) and the JSM (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) indicate that perceived controllability of the Big Five traits could contribute to personality-​ based prejudice and discrimination in the workplace. As a specific example, McCord and Joseph (2020) suggest that the perceived controllability of extraversion may lead to introversion mistreatment because “someone who behaves in an introverted manner may be viewed as choosing not to behave in a normative fashion and may therefore be treated negatively for choosing their own fate” (p. 4). To the extent that human resource professionals use intuitive procedures (Highhouse, 2008) and personality tests to make decisions like selection and promotion (Rothstein & Goffin, 2006), introverted workers could be at an unfair disadvantage compared to their more extraverted colleagues. This is particularly true given that extraversion explains only about 1% of the variance in objective, overall work performance (Wilmot et al., 2019), meaning that some human resources decisions may at least partly rely on methods with lower criterion-​related validity. Indeed, empirical work indicates that perceptions of introversion mistreatment in fact exist and are related to a host of negative outcomes for employees (McCord, 2021). Personality-​based bias also has the potential to indirectly bleed into race discrimination. For instance, Asian-​Americans are stereotyped as quiet and unsociable (Jackson et al., 1996; Lin et al., 2005), characteristics that are associated with introversion (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Goldberg, 1990). Of course, the next step is to clearly ascertain the extent to which perceived controllability of the Big Five plays a role in personality-​based prejudice and discrimination before concrete interventions can be developed. Thus,

38    M.A. McCord and B. Westerberg future scholars are strongly encouraged to pursue this line of research with rigorous methods such as experience sampling, which would be beneficial in evaluating this bias process over time. Another interesting avenue in this research stream could be one’s own personality self-​identity. This identity may serve as a predictor of the perceived controllability of the corresponding trait. For example, one who identifies as being more introverted may be less likely to perceive extraverted/​introverted characteristics as being controllable and are thus less likely to engage in corresponding personality-​ related mistreatment. To play devil’s advocate of the present findings, one could argue that a simple way to avoid personality-​based prejudice and associated discrimination is for individuals to engage in self-​control so that their affect, cognitions, and behaviors align with contextually desirable personality traits. Indeed, although personality traits are relatively stable with mean level changes in personality reflecting different life stages (Bleidorn & Hopwood, 2019), there is also a substantial amount of within person variance in personality, which suggests individuals do indeed have momentary behavioral flexibility (Fleeson, 2004). Further, individuals can engage in short-​term self-​control to be in alignment with contextual requirements (Grandey & Gabriel, 2015; Jacques-​Hamilton, Sun, & Smillie, 2019; Lian et al., 2017). However, in accordance with the job demands-​resources theory (JDR; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017), such self-​control demands would likely become a source of additional work stress in the long-​term (i.e., a work demand), which could be associated with strain outcomes such as burnout (Lesener, Gusy, & Wolter, 2019) and lower job performance (Taris, 2006). Thus, although feasible in the short-​term, long-​ term self-​control of personality traits to meet contextual demands would likely be detrimental to the well-​being and productivity of employees and organizations. Future research could dig deeper into this rationale by studying organizational demands for personality-​related behaviors as a contextual factor. To examine the effects of personality self-​control more closely, an experimental approach could manipulate how long one is directed to behave counter to their typical personality and how this self-​control effects outcomes such as concentration, fatigue, and performance.

Conclusion The purpose of the present study was to assess the perceived controllability of the Big Five personality traits in the work setting. The results indicated that conscientiousness tends to be perceived as the most controllable trait, whereas neuroticism and openness to experience the least controllable. This work contributes to our understanding of the relationship between trait visibility and perceived controllability, in addition to why personality is a relevant issue for diversity and inclusion in the workplace. We suggest further work that studies the processes that tie perceived controllability to workplace discrimination.

The Big Five Personality Traits at Work    39

References Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11–​39). New York, NY: Springer-​Verlag. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–​resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–​285. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1037/​ocp​0000​056 Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? Personality and Performance, 9, 9–​29. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​1468-​2389.00160 Bleidorn, W., & Hopwood, C. J. (2019). Stability and change in personality traits over the lifespan. In D. P. McAdams, R. L. Shiner, & J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 237–​252). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-​analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–​ 1122. doi: 10.1037/​a0021212 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-​year longitudinal study of self-​reports and spouse ratings on the Neo personality inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–​863. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022-​3514.54.5.853 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-​R Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment (Vol 2, pp. 179–​198), London, UK: Sage Publications. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-​suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414–​446. doi: 10.1037/​ 0033-​2909.129.3.414. Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The bias map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–​648. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1037/​0022-​3514.92.4.631 Dipboye, R. L., & Halverson, S. K. (2004). Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations. In R. W. Griffin & A. M. O’Leary-​Kelly (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 131–​158). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-​Bass. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (2022). Discrimination by type. Retrieved from https://​www.eeoc.gov/​dis​crim​inat​ion-​type Fleeson, W. (2004). Moving personality beyond the person-​situation debate: The challenge and the opportunity of within-​person variability. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), 83–​87. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.0963-​7214.2004.00280.x Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 177–​182. 10.1177%2F0963721412445309 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-​five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–​1229. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​ 0022-​3514.59.6.1216 Grandey, A. A., & Gabriel, A. S. (2015). Emotional labor at a crossroads: Where do we go from here?. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 323–​ 349. 10.1146/​annurev-​orgpsych-​032414-​111400 Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(3), 333–​342. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ j.1754-​9434.2008.00058.x

40    M.A. McCord and B. Westerberg Jackson, L. A., Hodge, C. N., Gerard, D. A., Ingram, J. M., Ervin, K. S., & Sheppard, L. A. (1996). Cognition, affect, and behavior in the prediction of group attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 306–​316. doi:10.1177/​0146167296223009 Jacques-​Hamilton, R., Sun, J., & Smillie, L. D. (2019). Costs and benefits of acting extraverted: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(9), 1538–​1556. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​xge​0000​516 John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History: measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114–​158). New York, NY: Guilford Press. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-​Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–​138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Lesener, T., Gusy, B., & Wolter, C. (2019). The job demands-​resources model: A meta-​analytic review of longitudinal studies. Work & Stress, 33(1), 76–​103. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​02678​ 373.2018.1529​065 Lian, H., Yam, K. C., Ferris, D. L., & Brown, D. (2017). Self-​control at work. Academy of Management Annals, 11(2), 703–​732. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​ann​als.2015.0126 Lin, M. H., Kwan, V. S. Y., Cheung, A., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). Stereotype content model explains prejudice for an envied outgroup: Scale of anti-​Asian American stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 34–​47. doi:10.1177/​0146167204271320 McCord, M. A. (2021). Development and validation of the Perceived Introversion Mistreatment Scale. Occupational Health Science, 5, 437–​471. doi: 10.1007/​s41542-​021-​00095-​4 McCord, M. A., & Joseph, D. L. (2020). A framework of negative responses to introversion at work, Personality and Individual Differences, 161, 109944. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.paid.2020.109​944 Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17, 437–​455. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​a0028​085 Pytlik-​Zillig, L. M. P., Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (2002). What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 847–​858. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F0​1461​6720​2289​013 Rothstein, M. G., & Goffin, R. D. (2006). The use of personality measures in personnel selection: What does current research support? Human Resource Management Review, 16, 155–​ 180. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.hrmr.2006.03.004 Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-​analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65, 445–​494. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1744-​6570.2012.01250.x Spinath, B., Spinath, F. M., Riemann, R., & Angleitner, A. (2003). Implicit theories about personality and intelligence and their relationship to actual personality and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 939–​951. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ S0191-​8869(02)00310-​0 Stone-​Romero, E. F. (2005). Personality-​based stigmas and unfair discrimination in work organizations. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Collela (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 247–​272). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Talaska, C. A., Fiske, S. T., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination: Emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-​analysis. Social Justice Research, 21, 263–​ 296. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​211-​008-​0071-​2

The Big Five Personality Traits at Work    41 Taris, T. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical review of 16 studies. Work & Stress, 20(4), 316–​334. doi: 10.1080/​02678370601065893 Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–​748. Wilmot, M. P. (2017). Personality and its impacts across the behavioral sciences: A quantitative review of meta-​analytic findings [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minnesota. Wilmot, M. P., Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-​Mueller, J. D., & Ones, D. S. (2019). Extraversion advantages at work: A quantitative review and synthesis of the meta-​analytic evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​apl​ 0000​415

Appendix Perceived Controllability of the Big Five Personality Traits To what extent are each of the following controllable or changeable in the workplace? For example, for the term “emotional,” to what extent do you think “How emotional you are” is controllable or changeable at work? How _​_​_​_​_​_​_​ you are.

1 Not at all controllable

Extraversion 1. Talkative 2. Assertive 3. Energetic 4. Enthusiastic 5. Adventurous 6. Reserved

Agreeableness 7. Forgiving 8. Selfish 9. Helpful 10. Stubborn 11. Modest 12. Sympathetic

2 Slightly controllable

3 Somewhat controllable

4 Moderately controllable

5 Extremely controllable

42    M.A. McCord and B. Westerberg Conscientiousness 13. Efficient 14. Organized 15. Careless 16. Thorough 17. Lazy 18. Impulsive

Neurotic 19. Relaxed 20. Irritable 21. Depressed 22. Shy 23. Moody 24. Self-​confident

Open 25. Curious 26. Imaginative 27. Artistic 28. Widely interested 29. Excitable 30. Unconventional

chapter 4

In di vidual Di ffe re nc e s in Cu rio si t y Learning, Adaptation, and Work-​Related Outcomes Thomas G. Reio, Jr.

Curiosity is the foundation for the learning that allows us to adapt proactively and continuously to our ever-​changing environments (Berlyne, 1978). Curiosity, defined as the desire for new information and knowledge and sensory experience that motivates exploratory behavior (Litman & Spielberger, 2003), has been linked positively to numerous outcomes that involve learning. Observation, consultation, thinking/​reflection, novelty seeking, and trial-​and-​error experimentation are examples of exploratory behaviors used to acquire the information and experiences required to satisfy one’s curiosity, which results in knowledge acquisition and learning. Such outcomes include motivated classroom learning in children’s (e.g., K-​12) and adults’ (e.g., training workshop) educational settings, socialization-​related learning in workplace settings (e.g., a newcomer learning how to fit into a new job or organization), creative and innovative behaviors, and job performance, to name a few (Reio & Sanders-​Reio, 2006; Reio & Wiswell, 2000). In general, for the sake of parsimony, researchers tend to think of two main types of curiosity—​the information-​seeking or cognitive type of curiosity, which is linked closely with learning—​and the sensory type that is linked to seeking new sensations and experiences, which can result in new, incidental learning as a by-​product of engaging in the new experience (Reio & Sanders-​Reio, 2006). Novelty must be sufficiently present to stimulate one’s cognitive or sensory curiosity; objects or things that are too routine or novel are far less likely to stimulate curiosity and thus moderate levels of novelty are best (Berlyne, 1978; Piaget, 1952). Both types of curiosity are required to adapt to our environments because we need to learn and be willing to try new experiences, and accept the possible risks associated with doing so, in service of optimal development. Being curious therefore engenders taking risks for the sake of acquiring new knowledge or experiences, as not everything is tried-​and-​true and clear; information gaps

44   T.G. Reio, Jr. exist that must be satisfied through being curious and exploratory (Berlyne, 1960; Loewenstein, 1994). Because of the uncertainty associated with being curious and exploratory, learning is replete with risk-​taking (Biestra, 2007; Dewey, 1916; Reio, 2007); taking these risks is essential to acquiring the information needed, for example, to solve a problem or experience the novel properties of sensations associated with rock climbing, tasting a new ethnic cuisine or experimenting with licit or illicit drugs. Interestingly, it is the sensory type of curiosity that is most closely linked to creative thinking and behavior because it involves seeking divergent experiences and trying new things, whereas the cognitive type of curiosity is more closely aligned with seeking information to satisfy a specific lack of information. Notwithstanding, it is plausible that being too curious can be problematic, particularly in situations where the risk associated with acquiring the new knowledge or experience outweighs the potential gain. For example, driven by one’s curiosity about the utility of a new statistical procedure, taking the intellectual risk of using the new, untested statistical procedure to analyze the data associated with testing a hypothesis could expose one to making an interpretation error, inviting subsequent peer rejection and a loss of face. On the other hand, being willing to experience just how hot and tasty a new grilling sauce might be, taking the sensory risk of trying the new sauce merely for the sake of trying it exposes one to potentially knotty esophageal or stomach distress. In each case, if the outcome is decidedly positive, the gain outweighs the curiosity-​related risk; in contrast, if the outcomes were unambiguously negative, the loss outweighed the curiosity-​related risk and the outcome becomes dubious. As a psychological construct with strong theoretical and animal-​and human-​based empirical support, there have been a number of competing conceptualizations and operationalizations of curiosity. Some of the confusion comes from equating curiosity with interest, and it is clearly not the same. Dewey (1916) theorized that first comes curiosity, and through curiosity-​driven experiences over time, curiosities directed toward select things or topic areas subsequently develop into specific, enduring interests. Curiosity, therefore, is the engine leading to and continuously supporting development of personal and occupational interests. G. Stanley Hall and Theodate L. Smith (1903) also suggested that curiosity develops in stages, as did Dewey (1916), and both extolled its importance in educational settings and in any place where learning and adaptation are required. Likewise, Piaget (1952) strongly suggested that being actively curious (i.e., seeking new information and stimuli) and exploratory was essential for building new knowledge and facilitating optimal development throughout the stages of cognitive development. Demonstrating the usefulness of investigating curiosity during a stage of development, Reio and Sanders-​Reio (2020) examined curiosity as it relates to identity formation in the emerging adulthood stage of development (ages 18–​29) and found that cognitive and sensory curiosity and the cognitive and sensory curiosity interaction were positively linked to identity formation and subjective well-​being. Daniel E. Berlyne, the great neobehavioral, experimental psychologist whose theoretical notions underlie much of the current curiosity research, saw curiosity as being mainly a psychological state and thus situational, and of the epistemic (knowledge-​ seeking) type, with sensory curiosity remaining an undeveloped line of his research. Still,

Individual Differences in Curiosity    45 in his seminal 1960 work, Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity, guided primarily by Cattell’s and Guilford’s work with similar constructs (exploration and sensitivity to problems, respectively; related to his notion of epistemic curiosity), however, he theorized the possibility of individual differences in curiosity. Other researchers have carried forth his seminal work to develop trait curiosity measures that get at individual differences like the Novelty Experiencing Scale (Pearson, 1970), Academic Curiosity Scale (Vidler & Rawan, 1974), Curiosity as a Feeling of Deprivation and Curiosity as a Feeling of Interest Scales (Litman & Jimerson, 2004), Imaginal Processes Inventory (Singer & Antrobus, 1972), Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1994), Sensory Curiosity Scale (Litman, Collins, & Spielberger, 2005), Social Curiosity Scale (Renner, 2006), Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-​II (Kashdan et al., 2009), Five-​Dimensional Curiosity Scale-​Revised (Kashdan et al., 2020), Interpersonal Curiosity Scale (Litman & Pezzo, 2007), M-​Workplace Curiosity Scale (Kashdan et al., 2020), Two-​Factor Curiosity Scale (Ainley, 1987), and the Morbid Curiosity Scale (Scrivner, 2021). The State-​Trait Personality Inventory (Spielberger, 1979) and Melbourne Curiosity Inventory (Naylor, 1981) were developed as well to measure cognitive curiosity as a personality trait and emotional state (Spielberger & Starr, 1994). The large majority of recent curiosity research has favored developing trait measures of curiosity and eschewed measuring and examining the transient, situational state type of curiosity pioneered by Berlyne (1960, 1978). Trait measures are useful for examining individual differences and predicting theoretically, empirically, and practically important outcomes, but the research is incomplete (Kashdan et al., 2020; Lievens et al., 2022). To understand the nature of curiosity best, and its related outcomes, it is best examining it as both a trait and state concurrently, especially when considering its motivational properties in educational and workplace research (see Reio & Sanders-​Reio, 2020). Further, sensory curiosity, the type of curiosity most closely aligned with creative thinking and behavior, has been understudied. Again, this type of curiosity is just as vital as the information-​seeking, cognitive type of curiosity if we are to learn, adapt and survive as a species. In what follows, the author examines some the most salient, important, and interesting individual difference curiosity research. An attempt is made to make sense of the disparate curiosity research as it relates to the workplace. In a study of 150 community-​living volunteers, after statistically controlling for years of formal education (ANCOVA), Stoner and Spencer (1986) found no evidence of age or sex differences in state or trait curiosity as measured by the State-​Trait Personality Inventory (Spielberger, 1979). The sex x age (3 groups: 21–​39, 40–​59, and 60–​83 years of age) interactions were not statistically significant as well. The authors interpreted these results to mean that both males and females find ways to maintain their cognitive curiosity and subsequently channel it to facilitate learning and cognitive development across the adult lifespan. Oddly, they claimed that older adults may have to work harder to maintain their curiosity, but this notion seems untenable in light of Berlyne’s (1960) curiosity theory and their own research findings. Although not the major focus of their confirmatory factor-​analytic study of curiosity, Reio et al. (2006) also investigated age

46   T.G. Reio, Jr. and sex differences in their research and found no sex or age differences (nor with their interactions) in cognitive curiosity scores as measured by the Spielberger’s (1979) and Naylor’s (1981) state and trait curiosity scales, as well as Vidler and Rawan’s (1974) academic curiosity, Pearson’s (1970) internal and external cognitive curiosity, and Ainley’s (1987) trait cognitive curiosity (MANOVAs) scales. In addition, Reio et al. examined ethnicity in their analyses and did not find significant differences by ethnic group on any of the cognitive curiosity scale scores. Although these are but two empirical studies, we can see preliminary evidence that cognitive curiosity remains stable by age, gender, and ethnicity throughout the adult lifespan, helping to dispel ageist workplace myths that older workers are incurious or do not want to learn. This is an important consideration because all-​too-​often, older workers tend to be excluded from management training and other promotional opportunities because they are perceived to be less curious and willing to learn, especially with anything technology related (Reio & Sanders-​ Reio, 1999). Marvin Zuckerman is the seminal sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity theorist, whose theoretical and empirical work has supported research into impulsiveness, risk taking, occupational choice, experimentation, novelty seeking, leisure and play, adaptation, and creativity, to name but a few topic areas, around the world. He operationalized the construct through the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1979, 1994), consisting of four subscales: boredom susceptibility, experience seeking, thrill-​and-​adventure seeking, and disinhibition. In their confirmatory factor-​analytic work with 11 curiosity scales, Reio et al. (2006) found two major types of curiosity; that is, cognitive and sensory. Further, they found two types of sensory curiosity: Zuckerman’s boredom susceptibility and disinhibition scales formed a new factor, which they called “social thrill seeking,” and Zuckerman’s thrill-​and-​adventure seeking became part of a new factor called “physical thrill seeking.” In a book compilation of empirical studies Zuckerman (2007) reported on numerous studies examining sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity across various times of the lifespan. He noted that the bulk of the literature supports the notion that men in general are higher in sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity than females at every stage across the lifespan. Females in their early twenties demonstrate the highest female sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity scores; adolescent and early adulthood males demonstrate the highest sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity scores among males. He also shared there is some evidence that sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity is lower among those who are disadvantaged economically. The disadvantaged, he argued, do not have as many opportunities to engage in the kind of behaviors related to sensory curiosity like scuba diving, rock climbing, exploring a new country, trying novel cuisines, camping out in the wilderness, meeting people from different cultures, etc. Likewise, he speculated that certain cultures were not as likely to embrace sensory curiosity because it has been linked to impulsiveness, unnecessary risk-​taking, promiscuity, and gambling. As the first of four examples of empirical research regarding sensation seeking/​sensory curiosity, Brown et al. (2018) discovered that hedge fund managers motivated by sensation seeking (they owned powerful sports cars) took on more investment risk,

Individual Differences in Curiosity    47 traded more frequently and unconventionally, and preferred stocks that were akin to lotteries, accompanied unfortunately by lower rates of investment returns. In a Finnish workplace setting, Grinblatt and Keloharju (2009) found that high sensation seeking investors traded more frequently because they were more comfortable with taking the associated risks with trading. Reio and Sanders-​Reio (2006) discovered that scores on Zuckerman’s disinhibition scale (“a desire to engage in disinhibited social behavior as facilitated by alcohol in parties and impulsive sexual activities”; Zuckerman & Aluja, 2014: 356) were negatively linked to job performance. The researchers noted that this negative relationship was a function of not fitting into the service company cultures being sampled in their research. On a more positive note, in an Australian study that mixed undergraduate students and the general population to study those experiencing trauma and coping (McKay, Skues, & Williams, 2018), sensation seeking was positively linked to psychological resilience because it tends to change one’s appraisal of problematic situations; high sensation seekers seek novel and stressful experiences because of the potential positive affect consequences (e.g., they tend to see adversity as a challenge, rather than a problem) and were less likely to be stressed in adverse situations. The authors concluded that sensation seeking should be seen as a resource to manage adversity and stress and build long-​term positive functioning. Using the Imaginal Processes Inventory (Singer & Antrobus, 1972), Giambra, Camp and Grodsky (1992) combined a cross-​sectional and longitudinal study (ages 17–​92) to find evidence of gender and age differences in information seeking (i.e., cognitive) and stimulation seeking (i.e., sensory) curiosity, even after statistically controlling for possible education effects. For the cross-​sectional data (N =​2136), men scored significantly higher on impersonal-​mechanical (e.g., “I like to read about new scientific findings”), boredom (e.g., “I am always glad to find an excuse to take me away from my work”), and need for external stimulation (e.g., “At the amusement park, I like to go on the most scary rides”), while women scored higher on interpersonal curiosity (e.g., “I like to read about the personal lives of persons of public prominence”). In essence, women tended to be less curious than men about things and men less curious about people than women. As for age differences, older men and women were less susceptible to boredom and demonstrated less need for stimulation among the middle-​aged and older participants than those who were younger. Gender x age interactions were not significant. In the longitudinal study (N =​346), there was not longitudinal change in women’s need for external stimulation, while boredom susceptibility and interpersonal curiosity decreased and impersonal-​mechanical curiosity increased. On the other hand, only the need for external stimulation changed (decreased) longitudinally for the men. Intraindividually, curiosity for interpersonal issues decreased for both men and women, while curiosity for things increased, with the effect three times greater for women than men. Overall, the information seeking findings seem to again dispel ageist myths that older adults are less curious and therefore not interested in learning. The stimulation seeking findings also suggest that older adults seem more adept than younger adults in structuring their lives to provide themselves the consistent stimulation needed to reduce boredom and the requirement for additional stimulation.

48   T.G. Reio, Jr. Novelty-​seeking is a form of exploratory behavior most closely associated with sensory curiosity, in that there are individual differences in the willingness to take risks for the sake of locating novel settings and experiences to achieve stimulation and increasingly intense experiences. Pearson (1970) developed the Novelty Experiencing Scale to measure novelty seeking propensity among adults, uniquely operationalizing novelty seeking as a construct consisting of the following dimensions: external cognitive, internal cognitive, external sensation, and internal sensation. Respondents indicate whether they “Like/​Dislike” each of the 80 items. The external and internal cognitive forms of novelty seeking are in essence cognitive curiosity, whereas the external and internal sensation forms are most associated with sensory curiosity. Reio and Choi (2004), in a study of 233 U.S. service workers, found that only the external sensory (e.g., “Riding the rapids in a swift moving stream”) form of novelty seeking decreased among the older age groups, while the external cognitive (e.g., “Learning new facts about WWII”), internal cognitive (e.g., “Thinking a lot about a new idea”) and internal sensory (e.g., “Letting myself experience new and unusual experiences”) forms of novelty seeking remained stable or increased with the older age groups. Further, the younger men tended to seek novelty through cognition less than older men, and younger women were more likely to seek novelty through sensory means than older women. Significantly, cognitive novelty seeking increased until it leveled off at age 50 for men and women and sensory novelty seeking was lower for women forty and older and men 50 and older. The upshot of this is that novelty seeking, closely linked to curiosity, has both cognitive and sensory forms, each of which demonstrate differences by gender and age. The findings that cognitive novelty seeking increases across the lifespan until it levels off at age 50 again illustrates how adults are just as willing to seek novelty and learn than younger adults, male or female. Seeing how sensory novelty seeking decreases for men and women, although at different ages, aligns nicely with Zuckerman’s (1994, 2007) research on a closely related construct, i.e., sensation seeking. Still, seeking novelty through sensory means is alive and well as one ages, but not quite as prevalent, indicating that those who are older find less risky and physically demanding means to seek and experience novelty. Reio et al. (2006), after subjecting a battery of state and trait curiosity measure scores to confirmatory factor analysis, discovered three curiosity types; that is, cognitive, consistent with the extant literature, and two types of sensory curiosity—​physical and social thrill-​seeking. Reio et al. chose to label the new factors thrill-​seeking instead of experience-​seeking because seeking new experiences seemed insufficient to cover the exciting, thrilling, and motivational part of trying something new, accompanied by taking risks, to experience something novel. Think about it: Are we motivated more by merely seeking an experience for the sake of it or a thrilling new experience for the sake of it? The latter seems much more aligned with Zuckerman’s (1994) original notion of sensation seeking as a form of sensory curiosity that motivates exploratory behavior, despite the potential risks (Kashdan et al., 2020). The physical type of sensory curiosity consists of seeking thrilling physical sensations and experiences like trying scuba diving, rock climbing, camping out in the wilderness,

Individual Differences in Curiosity    49 and skiing down a steep mountain slope. In contrast, the social type of sensory curiosity involves seeking thrilling social sensations and experiences through doing things like going to uninhibited parties, enjoying earthy body smells, experimenting with drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, and engaging in sex with numerous partners. Demonstrating the utility of the tripartite conception of curiosity, Reio and Jiannine (under review) found that social, but not physical thrill-​seeking curiosity predicted greater sexual arousal and sexual risk-​taking (number of partners) for both males and females. Clearly, then, sensory curiosity is not a unitary construct; rather, it is multidimensional as Zuckerman (1994, 2007) theorized, which has considerable clinical import in that interventions designed to reduce impulsive, unsafe sexual practices might target those higher in social thrill-​seeking and not necessarily physical thrill-​seeking propensities. Cognitive and sensory curiosity (i.e., as personality traits) are more likely to be associated with certain occupations than others (Zuckerman, 2007). Investigative reporters, police detectives, chess masters, and research scientists tend to have higher cognitive curiosity. On the other hand, artists (e.g., painters, musicians, and theatre actors), risky sport athletes (e.g., skydivers, elite mountain climbers, and white-​water canoeists), firefighters, designers, and bomb-​disposal experts tend to have higher sensory curiosity (Zuckerman & Aluja, 2014). Moreover, in a Dutch study of several non-​profit organizations (N =​3413; Van der Horst, Klehe, & Van der Heijden, 2017), building upon Reio & Wiswell’s (2000) seminal research of workplace curiosity, trait curiosity was positively linked to adaptive responding when being faced with imminent career transition primarily in the form of job loss. Trait curiosity moderated the relationship between age and engagement and age and approaching prospective employers. Kashdan et al. (2020) also pointed to the extensive benefits of curiosity, as measured by the M-​Workplace Curiosity Scale, in workplace settings. The scale was based upon the Reio et al. (2006) confirmatory factor-​analytic study where a tri-​partite model of curiosity was confirmed (cognitive, physical thrill-​seeking, and social thrill-​seeking; Kashdan et al., 2020) In a series of two studies (i.e., conducted in Germany and the United States) that also validated the measure, they found evidence that total curiosity was positively associated with job satisfaction (r =​0.42), engagement (r =​0.60), job crafting (r =​0.41), productive relationships at work (r =​0.24) and innovation (r =​0.53). Likewise, Gross, Zedelius, & Schooler (2020) extolled the virtues of workplace curiosity, particularly because of its hypothesized links to creative thinking and behavior. Citing a recent meta-​analysis examining the link between curiosity and creativity (curiosity and creativity were positively linked [weighted r =​0.41; Schutte & Malouff, 2020]), the authors reasoned that because curiosity is a function of novelty seeking and creativity is a function of transforming prevailing knowledge, notions, or objects into something novel and thought-​provoking, the link between the two constructs seems clear. Like Reio & Sanders-​Reio (2020), Gross, Zedelius, & Schooler called for more research that investigates curiosity also as a transient state, along with trying to go beyond trait curiosity self-​reports and using behavioral measures of curiosity instead.

50   T.G. Reio, Jr.

Conclusions Curiosity in its cognitive and sensory forms plays a significant role in our efforts to learn, adapt, and develop over the lifespan. Research into the cognitive kinds of curiosity as personality trait measures have predominated at the expense of gaining a more complete picture of how both kinds of curiosity separately and in combination relate to optimal human functioning. There are interesting individual differences in the construct and we need more empirical research to tease out their relevance to managing our daily lives at home, work, and in the community.

References Ainley, M. D. (1987). The factor structure of curiosity measures: Breadth and depth of interest curiosity styles. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 53–​59. Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-​Hill. Berlyne, D. E. (1978). Curiosity and learning. Motivation and Emotion, 2, 97–​175. Biesta, G. (2007). The problem of “learning.” Adults Learning, 18(8), 8–​11. Brown, S., Lu, Y., Ray, S., & Teo, M. (2018). Sensation seeking and hedge funds. The Journal of Finance, 73(6), 2871–​2914. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. Giambra, L. M., Camp, C. J., & Grodsky, A. (1992). Curiosity and stimulation seeking across the adult life span: Cross-​sectional and 6-​to 8-​year longitudinal findings. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 150–​157. Grinblatt, M., & Keloharju, M. (2009). Sensation seeking, overconfidence, and tradingactivity. The Journal of Finance, 64(2), 549–​578. Gross, M. E., Zedelius, C. M., & Schooler, J. W. (2020). Cultivating an understanding of curiosity as a seed for creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 77–​82. Hall, G. S., & Smith, T. L. (1903). Curiosity and interest. The Pedagogical Seminary, 10(3), 315–​358. Kashdan, T. B., Disabato, D. J., Goodman, F. R., & McKnight, P. E. (2020). The Five-​ Dimensional Curiosity Scale Revised (5DCR): Briefer subscales while separating overt and covert social curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 157, 109836. Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-​II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987–​998. Kashdan, T. B., Goodman, F. R., Disabato, D. J., McKnight, P. E., Kelso, K., & Naughton, C. (2020). Curiosity has comprehensive benefits in the workplace: Developing and validating a multidimensional workplace curiosity scale in United States and German employees. Personality and Individual Differences, 155, 109717. Lievens, F., Harrison, S. H., Mussel, P., & Litman, J. A. (2022) Killing the cat? A review of curiosity at work. Academy of Management Annals, 16(1), 179–​216. Litman, J. A., Collins, R. P., & Spielberger, C. D. (2005). The nature and measurement of sensory curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(6), 1123–​1133.

Individual Differences in Curiosity    51 Litman, J. A., & Jimerson, T. L. (2004). The measurement of curiosity as a feeling of deprivation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 147–​157, DOI: 10.1207/​s15327752jpa8202_​3 Litman, J. A., & Pezzo, M. V. (2007). Dimensionality of interpersonal curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1448–​1459. Litman, J. A., & Spielberger, C. D. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 75–​86. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75–​98. McKay, S., Skues, J. L., & Williams, B. J. (2018). With risk may come reward: Sensation seeking supports resilience through effective coping. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 100–​105. Naylor, F. D. (1981). A state‐trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist, 16(2), 172–​183. Pearson, P. H. (1970). Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34(2), 199–​204. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​ h0029​010 Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: University Press. Reio, T. G., Jr. (2007). Exploring the links between adult education and human resource development: Learning, risk‐taking, and democratic discourse. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 21(1‐2), 5–​12. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Choi, N. (2004). Novelty seeking in adulthood: Increases accompany decline. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 165(2), 119–​133. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Jiannine, L. (under review). Physical and social thrill seeking during emerging adulthood. Manuscript submitted to Personality and Individual Differences. Reio, T. G., Jr., Petrosko, J. M., Wiswell, A. K., & Thongsukmag, J. (2006). The measurement and conceptualization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(2), 117–​135. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Sanders-​Reio, J. (1999). Combating workplace ageism. Adult Learning, 11, 10–​13. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Sanders-​Reio, J. (2006). Sensation seeking as an inhibitor of job performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(4), 631–​642. Reio Jr, T. G., & Sanders-​Reio, J. (2020). Curiosity and well-​being in emerging adulthood. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 32(1), 17–​27. Reio, T. G., Jr., & Wiswell, A. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(1), 5–​30. Renner, B. (2006). Curiosity about people: The development of a social curiosity measure in adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 305–​316. Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2020). A meta‐analysis of the relationship between curiosity and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(4), 940–​947. Scrivner, C. (2021). The psychology of morbid curiosity: Development and initial validation of the Morbid Curiosity Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 183, 2021, 111139, https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.paid.2021.111​139 Singer, J. L., & Antrobus, J. A. (1972). Daydreaming, imaginal processes, and personality: A normative study. In P. Sheehan (ed.), The function and nature of imagery (pp. 175–​ 202). New York: Academic Press. Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Preliminary manual for the State-​Trait Personality Inventory. Tampa, FL: Human Resources Institute, University of South Florida.

52   T.G. Reio, Jr. Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F. O’Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221–​243). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stoner, S. B., & Spencer, W. B. (1986). Age and sex differences on the State-​Trait Personality Inventory. Psychological Reports, 59(3), 1315–​1319. Van der Horst, A. C., Klehe, U. C., & Van der Heijden, B. I. (2017). Adapting to a looming career transition: How age and core individual differences interact. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 99, 132–​145. Vidler, D. C., & Rawan, H. R. (1974). Construct validation of a scale of academic curiosity. Psychological Reports, 35(1), 263–​266. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking and risk taking. In C. Izard (Ed.), Emotions in personality and psychopathology (pp. 161–​197). Boston, MA: Springer US. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zuckerman, M., & Aluja, A. (2014). Measures of sensation seeking. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 352–​380). London, UK: Academic Press.

chapter 5

IQ, EQ, and M u lt i pl e Intellige nc e s A Brief Review of the Discussion Aybars Tuncdogan, Oguz A. Acar, Henk W. Volberda, and Ko de Ruyter

Throughout human history, people have sought to observe differences in individuals’ mental abilities, as these abilities significantly impact their performance. For example, Machiavelli observed that “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him” (Machiavelli, 1532/​2003). In parallel, the scientific focus on understanding intelligence, with the goal of categorizing individuals based on their mental abilities, has a long history dating back to the mid-​nineteenth century in the fields of psychology and neuroscience. In his seminal book, Sir Francis Galton, who was Charles Darwin’s cousin, posited that humans differ in intelligence (“human faculty”) and that these differences have hereditary origins (Galton, 1883). Galton’s views played a crucial role in the development of intelligence literature and laid the foundation for the broader study of individual differences. Much of the early research on intelligence aimed to predict pupils’ future academic success. For example, the Stanford-​Binet test (Terman & Merrill, 1937), which is still widely used today for measuring intelligence (e.g., DiStefano & Dombrowski, 2006), was initially developed for use with children. Over time, researchers have devised various ways of conceptualizing and measuring intelligence, examining the outcomes of intelligence variables in numerous contexts. Within organizational settings, researchers have explored different types of intelligence (Côté, 2014; Judge, Colbert, & Ilies, 2004; Tuncdogan, Acar, & Stam, 2017), particularly for selecting employees who best fit specific positions (i.e., person–​job fit—​Caldwell & O’Reilly III, 1990; Edwards, 1991; Peng & Mao, 2015). In this chapter, we will briefly summarize key conceptualizations of intelligence and discuss relevant findings from the organizational behavior literature, with a specific emphasis on job performance.

54    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, and K. de Ruyter The remainder of this chapter is organized as follows. First, we will discuss generalized mental ability as a unidimensional construct and its effects on job performance. Next, we will introduce conceptualizations of intelligence as a multidimensional construct (e.g., multiple intelligences) and follow that discussion with a section on emotional intelligence. Afterward, we will address ethical issues in this area and conclude the chapter by outlining potential directions for future research.

Conceptualization of Intelligence as a Unidimensional Construct While Sir Francis Galton proposed the idea of intelligence, the construct gained further clarity and was first measured empirically through the efforts of Charles Spearman. In particular, Spearman proposed a two-​factor model where there is the g factor, which stands for generalized intelligence, and many s factors that explain performance in specific tasks. One important point here is that in Spearman’s conceptualization, the g factor is not the sum of all s factors, but a latent construct that underlies the s factors. In other words, individuals with a high g factor tend to perform better than individuals with lower g factors across the spectrum of s factors (although Spearman did not propose a specific set of s factors). Following Spearman’s conceptualization, a number of different tests have been designed to measure general intelligence. The Stanford-​Binet Intelligence Scale (Terman & Merrill, 1937) and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Wechsler, 1955) measure general intelligence across several domains related to analytical abilities, verbal reasoning, and memory. By aggregating these scores, an overall IQ score is computed. In contrast, the Cattell Culture Fair Intelligence Test (Cattell, 1940) and Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1983) take a relatively different approach and use a variety of visual puzzles to measure general intelligence. One advantage of this approach is that they are relatively less prone to biases resulting from culture and language. Most research on generalized intelligence (IQ) finds a positive effect on most kinds of job performance (e.g., Gonzalez-​Mulé, Mount, & Oh, 2014; Hunter, 1986; Kuncel et al., 2014; Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), although the extent to which this is the case has been debated. For example, Ree and Earles have argued that “intelligence is the best predictor of job performance” and conjectured that “If an employer were to use only intelligence tests and select the highest scoring applicant for each job, training results would be predicted well regardless of the job, and overall performance from the employees selected would be maximized” (Ree & Earles 1992: 88). Similarly, in another paper, they argued in order to predict job performance, “not much more than g” was needed (Ree, Earles, & Teachout, 1994). Several other researchers directly rejected this view that the g-​factor singularly explains job performance (e.g., McClelland, 1993; Sternberg, 1997; Sternberg & Wagner, 1993). Indeed, in the following years, several other factors were

IQ, EQ, and Multiple Intelligences    55 found to play a role in determining job performance. These include personality traits (e.g., He, Donnellan, & Mendoza, 2019), motivation (e.g., Bellé, 2013), mental health (e.g., Montano et al., 2017; Van Gordon et al., 2014), core self-​evaluations (e.g., Kacmar et al., 2009), and prior job experience (e.g., Hunter & Thatcher, 2007; Sonnetag, Volmer, & Spychala, 2008) as well as various external factors (e.g., Gilboa et al., 2008; López-​ Cabarcos, Vázquez-​Rodríguez, & Quiñoá-​Piñeiro, 2022). That said, it is worth noting that (1) some of these studies did not include generalized intelligence as a control variable (i.e., some of these effects may be weakened or even possibly disappear if it is included), (2) the specific measurement of generalized intelligence used in a study can affect its findings, and (3) how job performance is measured can also affect research findings (e.g., physical attractiveness affects job-​related outcomes, but not necessarily because it increases the actual performance in the specific task—​e.g., Hosoda, Stone‐Romero, & Coats, 2003). Furthermore, job performance is prone to day-​to-​day fluctuations, which may be explained better by other variables than IQ, such as personality states and affective states (e.g., Dalal, Alaybek, & Lievens, 2020). Finally, IQ is found to affect several other variables that can affect an individual’s overall job performance, such as strategic thinking competency (Dragoni et al., 2011), creativity (Kim, 2008), leadership role occupancy (Daly, Egan, & O’Reilly, 2015) and (lower) likelihood of counterproductive work behaviors (Dilchert et al., 2007). Summarizing, we can say that research in this area typically suggests that intelligence (conceptualized as generalized mental ability) is one of the important predictors of job performance.

Conceptualization of Intelligence as a Multidimensional Construct Some researchers have taken a different approach, and conceptualized intelligence as a multidimensional construct, consisting of multiple intelligence scores, rather than a single IQ score. For example, Thurstone (1938) argued that intelligence consists of seven mental abilities; reasoning (the ability to think logically), number facility (mathematical ability) verbal comprehension (the ability to understand relationships between verbal constructs), word fluency (the ability to fluently find words), spatial visualization (the ability to visualize objects), perceptual speed (how quickly one can comprehend visual stimuli) and associative memory (ability to remember facts). It is worth noting that this conceptualization still focuses on concepts related to academic study, as—​like most researchers before him, such as Stanford and Binet—​Thurstone’s main goal was also explaining children’s academic performance. Howard Gardner’s popular Theory of Multiple Intelligences (Gardner, 2011) built on this idea of multiple intelligences proposed by Thurstone, but his model differs from its predecessors in at least two ways. First, Gardner does not focus primarily on explaining academic performance but aims to explain performance in general. In line with this,

56    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, and K. de Ruyter his factors have a relatively broader scope and encompass a wider range of abilities. Secondly, his intelligence types were not based mainly on the psychometric tradition but on a diverse range of sources such as cognitive psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience. Gardner considered also evidence from various populations in developing his framework. One such source was patients with specific kinds of brain damage (e.g., patients with only one part of the brain damaged in an accident) and he tried to understand what they could still do and what they could no longer do. He also examined prodigies with exceptional abilities as well as experts in different domains. Gardner’s work resulted in a model of eight intelligences, which consisted of logical-​mathematical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, spatial intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence, bodily-​kinesthetic intelligence, naturalistic intelligence, and musical intelligence (although more dimensions were added later on). However, it is also worth noting that some researchers argue that there is insufficient empirical evidence for multiple intelligences (e.g., Waterhouse, 2006), whereas some others argue that they have found neurological evidence pointing to the validity of the model (e.g., Shearer & Karanian, 2017). In organizational contexts, the number of studies examining multiple intelligences is relatively small, and most are conceptual. For example, Martin (2003) argues that multiple intelligences theory could help increase knowledge diversity in the workplace. Similarly, Green et al. (2005) contend that considering the differences in team members’ multiple intelligence dimensions can boost team productivity. They explain that by doing so, managers can enhance their teams’ problem-​solving abilities, as they will be better equipped to reduce dysfunctional conflict and promote functional team conflict instead. Several other researchers have likewise argued that the perspective of multiple intelligences can help improve performance outcomes (e.g., Martin, 2001; Noruzi & Rahimi, 2010; Sariolghalam, Noruzi, & Rahimi, 2010; Weller, 1999). That said, research—​particularly empirical research—​in this area is very limited.

Research on Emotional Intelligence (EQ) The concept of emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995, 1996, 2020; Salovey & Mayer, 1990) refers to “an ability to recognize the meanings of emotions and their relationships, and to reason and problem-​solve on the basis of them” (Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 1999: 267). Another definition is “the ability or tendency to perceive, understand, regulate, and harness emotions adaptively in the self and in others” (Schutte et al., 2001: 523). Alternatively, it can be defined as “the ability of an individual to distinguish among the different emotions they may be feeling and to prioritize those that are influencing their thought processes” (Jordan, Ashkanasy, & Hartel, 2002: 366). In organizational research, a wide range of desirable effects of emotional intelligence has been observed. As

IQ, EQ, and Multiple Intelligences    57 a result, many organizations aim to select employees with high emotional intelligence or try to develop their employees in this regard (e.g., Beaujean, Davidson, & Madge, 2006; Cadman & Brewer, 2001; Snowden et al., 2015)—​although whether emotional intelligence can be developed is somewhat unclear (e.g., Dulewicz & Higgs, 2004). For example, emotional intelligence is quite consistently found to have positive effects on job performance in various contexts, such as nursing, policing, and leadership (e.g., Al Ali, Garner, & Magadley, 2012; Fujino et al., 2015; Lyons & Schneider, 2005; Wilderom et al., 2015). Similarly, Kidwell et al. (2011) found that emotional intelligence positively affects the outcomes of marketing exchanges, especially if the salesperson also has high cognitive intelligence. A meta-​analysis concludes that “the present data strongly supported the predictive validity of EI in terms of job performance, above and beyond the FFM and cognitive ability” (O’Boyle et al., 2011). Emotional intelligence is also positively related to organizational citizenship behaviors (Carmeli & Josman, 2006; Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2017, 2020), resilience (Bande et al., 2015), and leader-​member exchange (Clarke & Mahadi, 2017), and negatively related to counterproductive work behaviors (Jung & Yoon, 2012; Miao, Humphrey, & Qian, 2017, 2020) and turnover intentions (Lee & Chelladurai, 2018). While there is a large body of research examining emotional intelligence, it has also been criticized in several ways. Some researchers have argued that, from an empirical standpoint, it does not have sufficient construct clarity (i.e., it is not defined clearly) and overlaps with other constructs (e.g., Davies, Stankov, & Roberts, 1998). From the standpoint of theoretical definition, while it was originally developed as a different kind of intelligence (i.e., a trait), some emotional intelligence researchers conceptualize it as an ability (e.g., Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016), which may suggest that it is actually a proximal variable stemming from upstream trait variables, such as IQ and personality traits (for a discussion on proximal vs. distal variables, see Antonakis, Day, & Schyns, 2012). Indeed, some researchers have argued that emotional intelligence is unable to make predictions beyond IQ and personality traits (Antonakis, 2004; Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dasborough, 2009), although others have provided evidence that it can (O’Boyle et al., 2011). There have also been various criticisms of instruments used for measuring emotional intelligence (e.g., Conte, 2005; Conte & Dean, 2006).

Ethical Issues and Controversies about Intelligence There have been a number of different controversies regarding research on intelligence. To begin with, as we have previously discussed, the validity of different measures of intelligence has been continuously debated (e.g., Gardner, 2011; Mayer, Caruso, & Salovey, 2016). For example, there is ongoing debate about whether there is a single intelligence or multiple types of intelligence, and if there are multiple intelligences, exactly how

58    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, and K. de Ruyter many of them exist (e.g., Gardner, 2011; Waterhouse, 2006). Likewise, there is ongoing debate about the existence of emotional intelligence and its predictive power beyond IQ and personality traits (e.g., Antonakis, 2004; Antonakis, Ashkanasy, & Dashborough, 2009; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2008). There is also an ongoing debate about potential biases of IQ tests and whether they are valid for all populations. For example, research suggests that the way IQ tests are developed, they may disadvantage (or even be abused to intentionally disadvantage) certain populations, such as different cultural, ethnic, and socio-​economic groups (e.g., Helms, 1992; Lozano-​Ruiz et al., 2021; MacArthur & Elley, 1963; Perry et al., 2008). In line with this, there have been debates regarding whether intelligence differences observed in different races are due to hereditary differences, biases due to testing instruments, or due to environmental factors, such as nutrition and education (e.g., Cooper, 2005; Neisser et al., 1996; Nisbett, 2009; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Kidd, 2005). As a result, the use of tests measuring IQ, EQ, or multiple intelligences for the purpose of recruitment comes with potential ethical issues, especially if they are used by public organizations or school systems (e.g., Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2017).

Future Research Directions This brief review suggests several future research areas. First of all, organizational research on multiple intelligences is limited and mostly conceptual. There is a need for further empirical research within organizational contexts. Similarly, most of the existing body of research does not focus on specific dimensions of multiple intelligences theory, indicating that theory development in this area is limited. For example, the potential role of team composition in terms of multiple intelligences in team effectiveness is pointed out, but the specific cascading mechanisms through which different intelligences affect outcomes have not been theorized or tested. Secondly, research on general mental ability primarily focuses on the advantages of this trait; however, considering that almost any other psychological or physiological trait comes with at least some downsides, there is a need for more research into the dark side of high intelligence in organizational settings. Regarding emotional intelligence, further research is necessary to understand whether it is a true trait or an ability stemming from other traits, and if it is an ability, whether and how it can be enabled and developed by organizations. Additionally, the potential dark sides of high emotional intelligence are not well-​known, but some other traits with which emotional intelligence is correlated (e.g., agreeableness) are known to have certain downsides, such as decreased negotiation ability (e.g., Barry & Friedman, 1998). Finally, currently, most intelligence research focuses on intelligence at the level of the individual. However, there is value in understanding the macro-​level outcomes of micro-​foundational phenomena at the level of the individual (e.g., Powell, Lovallo, & Fox, 2011; Tuncdogan, Lindgreen, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2019; Tuncdogan, Lindgreen, Volberda, & van den Bosch, 2019). For instance, an emerging stream of

IQ, EQ, and Multiple Intelligences    59 research on collective intelligence is gaining attention (e.g., Riedl et al., 2021; Woolley, Aggarwal, & Malone, 2015). This stream of research builds on and extends individual-​ level intelligence research, as well as studies on group composition and group interaction, to understand intelligence as a collective-​level phenomenon. This area represents yet another underexplored avenue that presents significant opportunities for future research on intelligence.

References Al Ali, O. E., Garner, I., & Magadley, W. (2012). An exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence and job performance in police organizations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 1–​8. Antonakis, J. (2004). On why “emotional intelligence” will not predict leadership effectiveness beyond IQ or the “big five”: An extension and rejoinder. Organizational Analysis, 12(2), 171–​182. Antonakis, J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Dasborough, M. T. (2009). Does leadership need emotional intelligence?. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2), 247–​261. Antonakis, J., Day, D. V., & Schyns, B. (2012). Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 643–​650. Beaujean, M., Davidson, J., & Madge, S. (2006). The “moment of truth” in customer service. McKinsey Quarterly, 1, 62–​73. Bande, B., Fernández-​Ferrín, P., Varela, J. A., & Jaramillo, F. (2015). Emotions and salesperson propensity to leave: The effects of emotional intelligence and resilience. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 142–​153. Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 345. Bellé, N. (2013). Experimental evidence on the relationship between public service motivation and job performance. Public Administration Review, 73(1), 143–​153. Cadman, C., & Brewer, J. (2001). Emotional intelligence: a vital prerequisite for recruitment in nursing. Journal of Nursing Management, 9(6), 321–​324. Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1990). Measuring person-​job fit with a profile-​comparison process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6), 648. Carmeli, A., & Josman, Z. E. (2006). The relationship among emotional intelligence, task performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Human Performance, 19(4), 403–​419. Cattell, R. B. (1940). A culture-​free intelligence test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 31, 176–​199. Clarke, N., & Mahadi, N. (2017). Differences between follower and dyadic measures of LMX as mediators of emotional intelligence and employee performance, well-​being, and turnover intention. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(3), 373–​384. Conte, J. M. (2005). A review and critique of emotional intelligence measures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 433–​440. Conte, J. M., & Dean, M. A. (2006). Can emotional intelligence be measured? In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), A critique of emotional intelligence (pp. 59–​80). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cooper, R. S. (2005). Race and IQ: Molecular genetics as deus ex machina. American Psychologist, 60(1), 71.

60    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, and K. de Ruyter Côté, S. (2014). Emotional intelligence in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 1(1), 459–​488. Dalal, R. S., Alaybek, B., & Lievens, F. (2020). Within-​person job performance variability over short timeframes: Theory, empirical research, and practice. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 7, 421–​449. Daly, M., Egan, M., & O’Reilly, F. (2015). Childhood general cognitive ability predicts leadership role occupancy across life: Evidence from 17,000 cohort study participants. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 323–​341. Davies, M., Stankov, L., & Roberts, R. D. (1998). Emotional intelligence: in search of an elusive construct. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(4), 989. Dilchert, S., Ones, D. S., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2007). Cognitive ability predicts objectively measured counterproductive work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 616–​627. DiStefano, C., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2006). Investigating the theoretical structure of the Stanford-​Binet. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(2), 123–​136. Dragoni, L., Oh, I. S., Vankatwyk, P., & Tesluk, P. E. (2011). Developing executive leaders: The relative contribution of cognitive ability, personality, and the accumulation of work experience in predicting strategic thinking competency. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 829–​864. Dulewicz, V., & Higgs, M. (2004). Can emotional intelligence be developed?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 95–​111. Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person-​job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 283–​357). London: John Wiley & Sons. Fujino, Y., Tanaka, M., Yonemitsu, Y., & Kawamoto, R. (2015). The relationship between characteristics of nursing performance and years of experience in nurses with high emotional intelligence. International Journal of Nursing Practice, 21(6), 876–​881. Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. New York: Macmillan. Gardner, H. E. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books. Gilboa, S., Shirom, A., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. (2008). A meta‐analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology, 61(2), 227–​271. Green, A. L., Hill, A. Y., Friday, E., & Friday, S. S. (2005). The use of multiple intelligences to enhance team productivity. Management Decision. 43(3), 349–​359. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ bantam books. New York, NY: Bantam. Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence. Why it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24(6), 49–​50. Goleman, D. (2020). Emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Gonzalez-​Mulé, E., Mount, M. K., & Oh, I. S. (2014). A meta-​analysis of the relationship between general mental ability and nontask performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(6), 1222. He, Y., Donnellan, M. B., & Mendoza, A. M. (2019). Five-​factor personality domains and job performance: A second order meta-​analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 82, 103848. Helms, J. E. (1992). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing?. American Psychologist, 47(9), 1083.

IQ, EQ, and Multiple Intelligences    61 Hosoda, M., Stone‐Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003). The effects of physical attractiveness on job‐related outcomes: A meta‐analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 431–​462. Hunter, J. E. (1986). Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge, and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29(3), 340–​362. Hunter, L. W., & Thatcher, S. M. (2007). Feeling the heat: Effects of stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 953–​968. Jordan, P. J., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Hartel, C. E. (2002). Emotional intelligence as a moderator of emotional and behavioral reactions to job insecurity. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 361–​372. Judge, T. A., Colbert, A. E., & Ilies, R. (2004). Intelligence and leadership: A quantitative review and test of theoretical propositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 542. Jung, H. S., & Yoon, H. H. (2012). The effects of emotional intelligence on counterproductive work behaviors and organizational citizen behaviors among food and beverage employees in a deluxe hotel. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(2), 369–​378. Kacmar, K. M., Collins, B. J., Harris, K. J., & Judge, T. A. (2009). Core self-​evaluations and job performance: The role of the perceived work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1572. Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2017). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Kidwell, B., Hardesty, D. M., Murtha, B. R., & Sheng, S. (2011). Emotional intelligence in marketing exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 78–​95. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta‐analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 106–​130. Kuncel, N. R., Rose, M., Ejiogu, K., & Yang, Z. (2014). Cognitive ability and socio-​economic status relations with job performance. Intelligence, 46, 203–​208. Lee, Y. H., & Chelladurai, P. (2018). Emotional intelligence, emotional labor, coach burnout, job satisfaction, and turnover intention in sport leadership. European Sport Management Quarterly, 18(4), 393–​412. López-​Cabarcos, M. Á., Vázquez-​Rodríguez, P., & Quiñoá-​Piñeiro, L. M. (2022). An approach to employees’ job performance through work environmental variables and leadership behaviours. Journal of Business Research, 140, 361–​369. Lozano-​Ruiz, A., Fasfous, A. F., Ibanez-​Casas, I., Cruz-​Quintana, F., Perez-​Garcia, M., & Pérez-​Marfil, M. N. (2021). Cultural bias in intelligence assessment using a culture-​free test in Moroccan children. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 36(8), 1502–​1510. Lyons, J. B., & Schneider, T. R. (2005). The influence of emotional intelligence on performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(4), 693–​703. MacArthur, R. S., & Elley, W. B. (1963). The reduction of socioeconomic bias in intelligence testing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 33(2), 107–​119. Machiavelli, N. (1532/​2003). The Prince. Boston, MA: Dante University Press. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (1999). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27(4), 267–​298. Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2016). The ability model of emotional intelligence: Principles and updates. Emotion Review, 8(4), 290–​300. McClelland, D. C. (1993). Intelligence is not the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(1), 5–​6.

62    A. Tuncdogan, O.A. Acar, H.W. Volberda, and K. de Ruyter Martin, J. (2001). Profiting from multiple intelligences in the workplace. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing. Martin, J. (2003). Multiple intelligences and business diversity. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(2), 187–​204. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2008). Emotional intelligence: New ability or eclectic traits?. American Psychologist, 63(6), 503. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2017). Are the emotionally intelligent good citizens or counterproductive? A meta-​analysis of emotional intelligence and its relationships with organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 144–​156. Miao, C., Humphrey, R. H., & Qian, S. (2020). The cross‐cultural moderators of the influence of emotional intelligence on organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 31(2), 213–​233. Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Hüffmeier, J. (2017). Leadership, followers’ mental health and job performance in organizations: A comprehensive meta‐analysis from an occupational health perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(3), 327–​350. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard Jr, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ... & Urbina, S. (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51(2), 77. Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. New York: WW Norton & Company. Noruzi, M. R., & Rahimi, G. R. (2010). Multiple intelligences, a new look to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Management Research, 2(2), 1. O’Boyle Jr, E. H., Humphrey, R. H., Pollack, J. M., Hawver, T. H., & Story, P. A. (2011). The relation between emotional intelligence and job performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 788–​818. Peng, Y., & Mao, C. (2015). The impact of person–​job fit on job satisfaction: The mediator role of self efficacy. Social Indicators Research, 121, 805–​813. Perry, J. C., Satiani, A., Henze, K. T., Mascher, J., & Helms, J. E. (2008). Why is there still no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability tests?. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 36(3), 155–​167. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32(13), 1369–​1386. Raven, J. (1983). The progressive matrices and mill hill vocabulary scale in western societies. Human assessment and Cultural Factors, 21, 107–​114. Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. (1992). Intelligence is the best predictor of job performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 86–​89. Ree, M. J., Earles, J. A., & Teachout, M. S. (1994). Predicting job performance: Not much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 518. Riedl, C., Kim, Y. J., Gupta, P., Malone, T. W., & Woolley, A. W. (2021). Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(21), e2005737118. Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, cognition and personality, 9(3), 185–​211. Sariolghalam, N., Noruzi, M. R., & Rahimi, G. R. (2010). The enigma of Howard Gardner’s multiple intelligences theory in the area of organizational effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(5), 161.

IQ, EQ, and Multiple Intelligences    63 Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Bobik, C., Coston, T. D., Greeson, C., Jedlicka, C., ... & Wendorf, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence and interpersonal relations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141(4), 523–​536. Shearer, C. B., & Karanian, J. M. (2017). The neuroscience of intelligence: Empirical support for the theory of multiple intelligences?. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 6, 211–​223. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (2004). General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(1), 162. Snowden, A., Watson, R., Stenhouse, R., & Hale, C. (2015). Emotional intelligence and nurse recruitment: Rasch and confirmatory factor analysis of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire short form. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 71(12), 2936–​2949. Sonnentag, S., Volmer, J., & Spychala, A. (2008). Job performance. In The Sage handbook of organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 427–​447). London, UK: SAGE Publications. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Managerial intelligence: Why IQ isn’t enough. Journal of Management, 23(3), 475–​493. Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Kidd, K. K. (2005). Intelligence, race, and genetics (Vol. 60, No. 1, p. 46). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Sternberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (1993). The g-​ocentric view of intelligence and job performance is wrong. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(1), 1–​4. Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A. (1937). Measuring intelligence: A guide to the administration of the new revised Stanford-​Binet tests of intelligence. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Thurstone, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tuncdogan, A., Acar, O. A., & Stam, D. (2017). Individual differences as antecedents of leader behavior: Towards an understanding of multi-​level outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 40–​64. Tuncdogan, A., Lindgreen, A., Van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2019). Guest editorial: Psychological micro-​foundations of business-​to-​business decision making. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 128–​133. Tuncdogan, A., Lindgreen, A., Volberda, H., & van den Bosch, F. (Eds.). (2019). Strategic renewal: Core concepts, antecedents, and micro foundations. London: Routledge. Van Gordon, W., Shonin, E., Zangeneh, M., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Work-​related mental health and job performance: Can mindfulness help?. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 129–​137. Waterhouse, L. (2006). Inadequate evidence for multiple intelligences, Mozart effect, and emotional intelligence theories. Educational Psychologist, 41(4), 247–​255. Wechsler, D. (1955). Manual for the Wechsler adult intelligence scale. New York: The Psychological Corporation. Weller, L. D. (1999). Application of the multiple intelligences theory in quality organizations. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 5(4), 136–​146. Wilderom, C. P., Hur, Y., Wiersma, U. J., den Berg, P. T. V., & Lee, J. (2015). From manager’s emotional intelligence to objective store performance: Through store cohesiveness and sales‐directed employee behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 825–​844. Woolley, A. W., Aggarwal, I., & Malone, T. W. (2015). Collective intelligence and group performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(6), 420–​424.

chapter 6

Cultu ral Int e l l i g e nc e and Persona l i t y Differential Effects of Plasticity and Stability Meta-​Traits Thomas Rockstuhl, Kok Yee Ng, and Soon Ang

Cultural intelligence, defined as an individual’s capability to function effectively in intercultural contexts (Ang et al., 2007; Earley & Ang, 2003), has emerged as an important predictor of effectiveness in today’s global workplace. Meta-​analyses have shown that CQ predicts a range of psychological, cognitive, behavioral, and performance outcomes (Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018; Schlaegel, Richter, & Taras, 2021). For instance, Rockstuhl and Van Dyne (2018) reported positive meta-​analytic relationships of CQ with seven outcomes, including cultural judgment and decision-​making, sociocultural adjustment, psychological well-​being, task performance, citizenship performance, adaptive performance, and leadership effectiveness. In contrast to the widely established criterion validity of CQ through meta-​analyses, we know relatively little of the antecedents of CQ. The lack of cumulative knowledge on CQ’s antecedents impedes our understanding of CQ’s nomological network, which in turn limits the evidence of CQ’s construct validity. Cronbach and Meehl (1955), in their seminal paper on construct validity, assert that “a necessary condition for a construct to be scientifically admissible is that it occur in a nomological net” (p. 290). In their words, “ ‘learning more about’ a theoretical construct is a matter of elaborating the nomological network in which it occurs” (p. 290). To advance our understanding of CQ, it is imperative that we extend and test it’s nomological network by examining the antecedents of CQ. An important antecedent in CQ’s nomological network is personality (Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Ang and Van Dyne (2008) suggested that personality traits should relate to CQ because they influence individuals’ choice

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    65 of behaviors and experiences. Despite the early identification of personality traits as antecedents of CQ, we have to-​date little insights on the personality-​CQ relationship for two reasons. First, not all studies that measured personality traits and CQ were interested in their substantive relationships. Often, these studies included personality traits as control variables to demonstrate the incremental predictive validity of CQ (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Huff, Song, & Gresch, 2014; Presbitero, 2016; Rockstuhl et al., 2011). Second, studies that examined the personality-​ CQ relationships often showed conflicting results. For instance, in the first reported study of the Big Five and CQ, Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh (2006) found that only openness to experience significantly predicted all four CQ factors (i.e., motivational CQ, meta-​cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ). The remaining four personality traits were differentially related to the four CQ factors. Subsequent studies on CQ and personality have yielded mixed findings. For instance, conscientiousness correlated positively with meta-​cognitive CQ in Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh’s (2006) and Li, Mobley, & Kelly’s (2016) research, but not in Sahin, Gürbüz, & Köksal’s (2014) study. Agreeableness correlated positively with behavioral CQ in Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh’s (2006) and Sahin, Gürbüz, & Köksal’s (2014) studies, but not in Li, Mobley, & Kelly’s (2016) study. On the other hand, Li, Mobley, & Kelly’s (2016) study reported a positive correlation between emotional stability and meta-​cognitive CQ but not for Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh’s (2006) and Sahin, Gürbüz, & Köksal (2014). Given the messy web of relationships between the Big Five and CQ, we seek to gain clarity by addressing two research questions through a meta-​analysis. First, how well and reliably do the Big Five personality traits predict CQ? We address this question by examining the strength and direction of the relationships and assessing the generalizability of the findings across studies. Second, how do the Big Five differentially predict CQ? Apart from the trait of openness to experience (e.g., see Ang, Van Dyne, & Koh, 2006; Presbitero, 2016; and meta-​analysis by Schlaegel, Richter, & Taras, 2021), existing studies offer little conclusion about the relative effects of the other four traits on CQ. We draw on research on the higher-​order structure of Big Five (Chang, Connelly, & Geeza, 2012; DeYoung, 2006; Digman, 1997) to predict that meta-​traits of plasticity predict CQ more than meta-​traits of stability. We test our hypothesis with a meta-​analysis, augmented with relative importance analyses. We examine our research questions with a meta-​analysis because of its several advantages. First, meta-​analyses are often heralded as “the tool for accumulating data and synthesizing them into generalizable knowledge” (Eden, 2002: 841; emphasis in original) because they overcome difficulties associated with primary studies, such as sampling and measurement error (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Second, meta-​analyses emphasize the magnitude of relationships and focus on effect size rather than statistical significance (Bosco et al., 2015). Analyzing the cumulative evidence for the relationships between Big Five and CQ helps clarify how far-​reaching and deep the impact of personality on CQ could be. Importantly, our meta-​analysis advances theory-​building in CQ and personality. By establishing the magnitude and generalizability of the personality-​CQ relationships, we seek to clarify the nomological network of CQ and how context affects the

66    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang personality-​CQ relationship. If personality effects on CQ fluctuate across studies and contexts, it could highlight the need for more precise theorizing on the contextual moderators of the Big Five and CQ relationships. Our findings on the relative importance of personality on CQ can also help formulate a more comprehensive theory of personality with more precise predictor-​criterion matching. For instance, previous Big Five meta-​analyses have concluded that conscientiousness is the most predictive trait for academic and job performance (Zell & Lesick, 2021), while openness to experience and agreeableness are better predictors of contextual performance (Chiaburu et al., 2011). Our focus on CQ extends these findings to shed light on which personality traits matter most for a global work context. We organize the rest of the chapter as follows. First, we review the definitions and conceptualizations of CQ. Next, we draw on meta-​traits theory to postulate which traits are more likely to predict CQ. We then describe our meta-​analytic approach and results and conclude with a discussion of our findings and implications for research and practice.

Cultural Intelligence Cultural intelligence (CQ) refers to an individual’s capability to function effectively in contexts characterized by cultural diversity (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003). Earley and Ang (2003) drew on Sternberg’s (1986) “multiple loci” of intelligence argument to conceptualize CQ as a multidimensional construct. Specifically, Sternberg proposed that there are different loci of intelligence within the person—​motivation, cognition, metacognition, and behavior—​and that a more complete understanding of intelligence requires the consideration of all four loci. Adopting the multiple-​loci argument, Ang and colleagues (e.g., Ang et al., 2007; Ang, Rockstuhl, & Christopoulos, 2021) defined CQ as an aggregate multidimensional construct that comprises four factors: (1) motivational CQ—​one’s energy and effort directed toward functioning effectively in intercultural situations; (2) cognitive CQ—​one’s knowledge about cultural similarities and differences; (3) metacognitive CQ—​one’s level of conscious cultural awareness during intercultural interactions; and (4) behavioral CQ—​one’s repertoire of speech acts, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors for intercultural interactions. Van Dyne et al. (2012) refined and expanded the CQ conceptualization by delineating granular subdimensions to better articulate the conceptual space for each CQ factor. Specifically, metacognitive CQ comprises subdimensions of planning, awareness, and checking. Cognitive CQ includes both culture-​general and culture-​specific knowledge. Motivational CQ includes intrinsic interest, extrinsic interest, and self-​efficacy for intercultural encounters. Behavioral CQ includes subdimensions for repertoires of verbal behavior, nonverbal behavior, and speech acts. Specifying these subdimensions not only allows for more nuanced theorizing and more precise matching of CQ factors with outcomes but also facilitates identifying concrete ways to train CQ (Ang, 2021).

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    67 Of course, predicting intercultural effectiveness is the sine qua non of CQ. Empirical research on CQ has supported the importance of CQ to functioning effectively in intercultural contexts. In a review of cross-​cultural competency measures, Matsumoto and Hwang (2013) concluded that “there is considerable evidence for the concurrent and predictive ecological validity of the CQS with samples from multiple cultures” (p. 856). Two recent meta-​analyses of the CQ literature likewise attest to the strong predictive validity of CQ as well as differential relationships of the four CQ factors with cognitive (e.g., intercultural judgment and decision making), affective (e.g., psychological well-​being and sociocultural adjustment), and performance (e.g., other-​rated job performance and global leadership effectiveness) outcomes (Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018; Schlaegel, Richter, & Taras, 2021). In addition, several studies have shown that CQ uniquely predicts outcomes in intercultural contexts. For example, Chua, Morris, & Mor (2012) and Rockstuhl and Ng (2008) showed that CQ predicts trust in culturally diverse others but not in culturally similar others; Groves & Feyerherm (2011) and Rockstuhl et al. (2011) showed that CQ predicts leadership effectiveness in culturally heterogeneous and cross-​border contexts but not culturally homogeneous contexts; and Chen, Liu, & Portnoy (2012) showed that CQ uniquely predicts cross-​cultural but not total sales of real estate agents. In sum, cumulating evidence supports the unique predictive validity of CQ for intercultural effectiveness, thus validating the four-​factor conceptualization of CQ. At the same time, because CQ is grounded in the larger domain of individual differences, it is equally important to understand CQ in relation to other individual differences. Research on individual differences broadly distinguishes between trait-​like constructs and state-​like constructs. Trait-​like individual differences such as personality are not specific to tasks or situations and are relatively stable over time (Ackerman & Humphreys, 1990; Chen et al., 2000). By contrast, Ang and colleagues conceptualized CQ as a state-​like individual difference that is more context-​specific and malleable than trait-​like constructs because CQ can be developed through experience, education, and training (Ang, Ng, & Rockstuhl, 2020; Raver & Van Dyne, 2017). Kanfer (1990) posits that trait-​like individual differences are more distal from work behaviors or performance than state-​like individual differences and exert their influence on outcomes through state-​like individual differences. Based on the trait-​state distinction, Ang and colleagues (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008; Earley & Ang, 2003) proposed that personality traits are antecedents to state-​like CQ in the larger nomological network of CQ.

Meta-​Traits of Plasticity and Stability Personality traits refer to people’s general dispositions and behavioral tendencies. The Big Five emerged in the 1990s as a “uniform conceptual framework for sorting the

68    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang myriad personality traits” (Sackett et al., 2017). The Big Five traits are (1) conscientiousness (a tendency to control behavior in pursuit of goals); (2) agreeableness (a tendency to maintain social relations by minimizing conflict); (3) emotional stability (a tendency to be less vulnerable to emotional turmoil); (4) extraversion (a tendency to be sensitive to reward and energy of goal pursuit); and (5) openness to experience (a tendency to pursue novelty and complexity) (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Goldberg, 1992). More recently, personality research demonstrates that the Big Five possesses a stable, higher-​order structure (e.g., Chang, Connelly, & Geeza, 2012; DeYoung, 2006; Digman, 1997) comprising two meta-​ traits: plasticity and stability (DeYoung, Peterson, & Higgins, 2002). In essence, plasticity and stability are meta-​traits that reflect differences in individuals’ tendency to approach versus avoid differences and novelty. The meta-​trait of plasticity reflects an individual’s tendency to explore and engage flexibly with novelty in social (extraversion) and intellectual/​experiential (openness to experience) domains. The meta-​trait of stability, on the other hand, reflects an individual’s tendency to adapt through avoiding impulsive disruptions that threaten goal achievement (conscientiousness), remaining calm in the face of stress and emotional disruptions (emotional stability), and maintaining stable social relations by avoiding conflicts (agreeableness; DeYoung, 2010; Digman, 1997). We argue that the meta-​traits of plasticity and stability affect CQ by influencing the extent to which individuals seek and engage in culturally novel and diverse experiences to develop their CQ. This reasoning is consistent with the state-​trait distinction between personality and CQ, where the latter is a set of specific capabilities that is “malleable and can be enhanced through experience, education, and training” (Ang, Ng, & Rockstuhl, 2020: 825). Specifically, we propose that individuals with plasticity traits (openness to experience and extraversion) are more likely to possess CQ because they tend to seek and engage in culturally diverse situations and interactions and therefore, likely to have more intercultural experiences to develop their CQ. Through greater experiences with culturally diverse situations, these individuals are likely to learn more about cultural differences and similarities (cognitive CQ) and develop greater confidence in managing culturally diverse situations (motivational CQ). Moreover, people with plasticity traits are likely to develop metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ because these CQ capabilities are consistent with their trait expression. For metacognition, people high in openness to experience are curious and enjoy “thinking about thinking.” As such, they are more likely to develop metacognitive CQ capabilities of awareness and checking of assumptions before, during, and after intercultural interactions. Extraverts, given their predisposition for seeking social affiliation and rewards, are also more likely to hone the ability to monitor and check assumptions during a cross-​cultural interaction. For behavioral CQ, we also expect those with high openness to experience to develop broader behavioral repertoires because they are more open to learning and experimenting with new behaviors in their cross-​cultural experiences. Similarly, extraverted individuals enjoy socializing with others, and their expressive, gregarious, and

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    69 less inhibited nature should foster a greater repertoire of behavior than introverted individuals. In contrast, we expect stability traits (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness) to be less strongly and systematically associated with CQ because these traits are not directly related to the choice of novel situations such as cross-​cultural interactions. For instance, studies on trait-​consistent situation selection suggest that conscientiousness is more strongly related to situations that offer opportunities to demonstrate duty; emotional stability is negatively associated with situations involving negativity; and agreeableness is negatively related to situations that involve deception (e.g., Rauthmann et al., 2014; Sherman et al., 2015). Given that global work contexts often entail uncertainty and require flexibility, we expect stability traits to be less strongly related to CQ. Hypothesis 1: Plasticity traits (openness to experience, extraversion) will be more strongly related to CQ than stability traits (conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness).

Methods Literature Search To identify articles for inclusion, we first compiled studies included in earlier CQ meta-​ analyses by Rockstuhl and Van Dyne (2018) and Schlaegel, Richter, and Taras (2021), which included empirical CQ research up to 2017. We then conducted a forward citation search of articles on CQ scales (Ang et al., 2007; Van Dyne et al., 2012) using Google Scholar, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases. We limited our search to peer-​ reviewed articles published between January 2018 and March 2021. This search yielded 420 results. Third, we searched the conference programs of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and Academy of Management. Finally, we searched for in-​press articles in leading management and cross-​cultural journals. This search effort produced an initial pool of 1,569 articles from 2003 to March 2021. We scanned all titles and abstracts and excluded studies that did not relate to CQ, studies that were not empirical, or studies that focused on variables at the group-​or firm-​level. For empirical studies, we included papers that report primary studies with correlation coefficients or provide sufficient information to compute a correlation coefficient relating CQ to the Big Five. The final database comprised 40 studies with 43 distinct samples. The combined sample size comprises 11,673 respondents from more than 40 countries.

Coding of Effect Sizes We coded each study for sample size, effect size, correlates of CQ, reliability of the CQ factors and the correlates. We also coded for study characteristics, including business or

70    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang educational study setting, expatriate or other types of participants, the country of data collection, and published or unpublished manuscript. Study characteristics included the following. First, 13 studies (30%) were conducted in a business setting, 27 studies (63%) in educational settings, and three studies (7%) in a mixed setting (i.e., combining students and executives in the same sample). Eighteen studies (42%) used sojourners or expatriates residing in a foreign country. Sixteen studies (37%) used respondents from mixed countries of origin. Thirteen studies (30%) used respondents from the U.S., and the remaining 14 studies (33%) sampled respondents from outside the U.S. Finally, 31 studies (72%) were published, and 12 studies (28%) were unpublished.

Analyses Outliers and publication bias check. We checked for univariate outliers following Viechtbauer and Cheung’s procedures (2010). We did not identify any outliers or influential cases for our primary meta-​analyses involving CQ and Big Five personality traits. We also examined for potential publication bias using cumulative forest plots for evidence of “drift” in the cumulative point estimate (Viechtbauer, 2010). Results did not show evidence of publication bias in relationships of CQ with Big Five personality traits. Meta-​analytic procedures. We synthesized correlation coefficients across primary studies following Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) random-​effects meta-​analysis approach. We corrected each primary correlation for attenuation due to unreliability in CQ measures and correlates. If studies did not report reliabilities, we used the average reliability across available studies. We then estimated population correlations ρ and computed 95% confidence intervals and 80% credibility intervals around ρ. A 95% CI that excludes zero indicates that the relationship is meaningfully different from zero. An 80% CV that excludes zero suggests that relationships are generalizable across situations. We also report the Q statistic (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) to formally test for the potential presence of moderators to relationships. Relative weights analysis. We tested our hypothesized differences between plasticity and stability traits as predictors of CQ using relative weights analysis (RWA) (Johnson, 2000; Johnson & LeBreton, 2004). We followed the theory-​testing method developed by Viswesvaran and Ones (1995) and created a meta-​analytic correlation matrix that included the four CQ factors and Big Five personality traits. We constructed this meta-​ analytic correlation matrix by combining our original CQ meta-​analyses and previously published meta-​analyses (Ones, 1993; Rockstuhl & Van Dyne, 2018). We then estimated the relative weights of Big Five in predicting each CQ factor following the procedures in Nimon and Oswald (2013). We computed relative weights using the rwa-​package in R (Chan, 2020). In addition, we constructed confidence intervals for relative weights and difference-​tests using the bootstrapping procedures recommended by Tonidandel, LeBreton, & Johnson (2009).

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    71

Results Table 6.1 summarizes our meta-​analytic correlation results for CQ and personality. All meta-​analytic correlations are significant except for emotional stability and behavioral CQ (ρ =​0.04; 95% CI [-​0.01; 0.08]. The non-​significant Q statistics show that there are no moderators, suggesting that the relationships between the Big Five and CQ factors are generalizable across study contexts.

Hypothesis-​Testing We test our hypothesis that plasticity traits are more strongly related to CQ than stability traits with relative weights analyses. Table 6.2 reports the results of these analyses. For metacognitive CQ, the Big Five personality traits jointly accounted for 19.6% of the total variance. Of the five traits, openness to experience (RW =​0.098, 95%CI [0.089, 0.107]; 50% of R2) was the most important predictor. Conscientiousness (RW =​0.035, 95%CI [0.030, 0.041]; 17.9% of R2), extraversion (RW =​0.030, 95%CI [0.025, 0.035]; 15.3% of R2), and agreeableness (RW =​0.030, 95%CI [0.025, 0.036]; 15.3% of R2) did not differ in their relative importance in predicting metacognitive CQ but were less important predictors than openness to experience. Finally, emotional stability (RW =​0.003, 95%CI [0.002, 0.005]; 1.5% of R2) was the least important Big Five predictor of metacognitive CQ. For cognitive CQ, the Big Five personality traits accounted for a total of 11.0% of the variance. Of the five personality traits, openness to experience (RW =​0.076, 95%CI [0.067, 0.085]; 69.1% of R2) was the most important predictor. Extraversion (RW =​0.027, 95%CI [0.022, 0.033]; 24.6% of R2) was the second-​most important predictor. Conscientiousness (RW =​0.003, 95%CI [0.002, 0.005]; 2.7% of R2) and agreeableness (RW =​0.003, 95%CI [0.002, 0.005]; 2.7% of R2) did not differ in their relative importance in predicting cognitive CQ but were less important predictors than both openness to experience extraversion. Finally, emotional stability (RW =​0.001, 95%CI [0.001, 0.001]; 0.9% of R2) was the least important predictor of cognitive CQ. For motivational CQ, the Big Five personality traits jointly accounted for 26.0% of the total variance. All five personality traits differed significantly in their relative importance in predicting motivational CQ. Of the five traits, openness to experience (RW =​0.128, 95%CI [0.118, 0.138]; 49.2% of R2) was the most important predictor. Extraversion (RW =​0.074, 95%CI [0.066, 0.082]; 28.5% of R2) was the second-​most important predictor of motivational CQ, followed by agreeableness (RW =​0.031, 95%CI [0.026, 0.036]; 11.9% of R2), conscientiousness (RW =​0.016, 95%CI [0.012, 0.020]; 6.2% of R2) and emotional stability (RW =​0.011, 95%CI [0.008, 0.013]; 4.2% of R2). Finally, for behavioral CQ, the Big Five personality traits jointly accounted for 12.3% of the total variance. Of the five traits, openness to experience (RW =​0.053, 95%CI [0.046,

72    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang Table 6.1 Meta-​analytic relationships of Big Five personality traits with CQ 95% CI Construct

k

N

R

ρ

SDρ

80% CV

Lower Upper Lower Upper Q

p(Q)

Openness to Experience Metacognitive CQ

38

9,638 .28

.33

.11

.28

.38

.19

.47

14.77 1.000

Cognitive CQ

40

10,388 .23

.29

.10

.24

.33

.15

.42

13.72 1.000

Motivational CQ

39

10,901 .30

.39

.13

.34

.44

.23

.55

23.57 0.968

Behavioral CQ

39

10,299 .20

.24

.14

.18

.30

.07

.42

19.60 0.994

Metacognitive CQ

33

8,450 .19

.21

.10

.16

.26

.09

.33

10.01 1.000

Cognitive CQ

34

8,842 .14

.19

.10

.14

.23

.06

.31

9.33 1.000

Motivational CQ

35

9,482 .27

.32

.07

.28

.36

.23

.42

9.42 1.000

Behavioral CQ

33

8,753 .14

.17

.11

.11

.22

.03

.30

11.40 1.000

Metacognitive CQ

28

7,191 .14

.20

.07

.14

.25

.11

.29

7.05 1.000

Cognitive CQ

29

7,583 .04

.05

.07

.01

.09

-​.04

.14

5.56 1.000

Motivational CQ

28

7,494 .12

.14

.10

.09

.20

.02

.27

8.76 1.000

Behavioral CQ

28

7,494 .13

.16

.07

.12

.21

.08

.25

6.22 1.000

Metacognitive CQ

26

7,043 .16

.23

.11

.15

.30

.08

.37

12.38 0.983

Cognitive CQ

27

7,435 .07

.09

.10

.03

.15

-​.04

.22

8.24 1.000

Motivational CQ

26

7,346 .20

.24

.12

.17

.31

.09

.39

11.53 0.990

Behavioral CQ

26

7,346 .14

.19

.09

.14

.24

.07

.31

6.79 1.000

Metacognitive CQ

26

7,071 .09

.12

.05

.08

.16

.05

.19

4.40 1.000

Cognitive CQ

27

7,463 .04

.06

.06

.01

.10

-​.02

.14

5.22 1.000

Motivational CQ

27

7,930 .15

.18

.08

.13

.24

.08

.29

7.86 1.000

Behavioral CQ

26

7,374 .05

.04

.07

-​.01

.08

-​.05

.12

4.88 1.000

Extraversion

Conscientiousness

Agreeableness

Emotional Stability

Note: k =​ number of correlations; N =​combined sample size; r =​mean uncorrected correlation; ρ =​estimated true score correlation corrected for measurement error; CI =​confidence interval; CV =​credibility interval. Q =​ Q-​statistic for homogeneity in the true score correlations across studies.

0.060]; 43.1% of R2) was the most important predictor. Conscientiousness (RW =​0.024, 95%CI [0.020, 0.029]; 19.5% of R2), agreeableness (RW =​0.023, 95%CI [0.019, 0.028]; 18.7% of R2), and extraversion (RW =​0.021, 95%CI [0.017, 0.026]; 17.1% of R2) did not differ in their relative importance in predicting behavioral CQ but were less important predictors than openness to experience. Emotional stability (RW =​0.002, 95%CI [0.001, 0.003]; 1.6% of R2) was the least important predictor of behavioral CQ.

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    73 Table 6.2 Relative importance of Big Five personality traits in predicting CQ Metacognitive CQ Cognitive CQ

Motivational CQ

Behavioral CQ

Predictor

RWs

% of R2 RWs

% of R2

RWs

% of R2 RWs

% of R2

Plasticity Traits

.128

65.3%

.103

93.7%

.202

77.7%

.074

60.2%

Openness

.098a

50.0%

.076a

69.1%

.128a

49.2%

.053a

43.1%

Extraversion

.030b

15.3%

.027b

24.6%

.074b

28.5%

.021b

17.1%

Stability Traits

.068

34.7%

.007

6.3%

.058

22.3%

.049

39.2%

Conscientiousness

.035b

17.9%

.003c

2.7%

.016d

6.2%

.024b

19.5%

Agreeableness

b

.030

15.3%

c

.003

2.7%

c

.031

11.9%

b

.023

18.7%

Emotional Stability

.003c

1.5%

.001d

0.9%

.011e

4.2%

.002c

1.6%

R2

.196

.110

.260

.123

Note: N (Harmonic Mean) =​13,143. RWs =​relative weights. For each CQ factor, relative weights with different superscripts (a, b) are significantly different at p < .05 based on a bootstrapped 95%CI of the difference in weights (Tonidandel, LeBreton, & Johnson, 2009).

Comparing the average variance explained by each personality trait across the four CQ factors, openness to experience ranked at the top, accounting for, on average, 52.8% of the variance that personality traits explain in CQ. This is followed by extraversion (average variance explained =​21.4%), agreeableness (average variance explained =​12.1%), conscientiousness (average variance explained =​11.6%), and lastly, emotional stability (average variance explained =​2.1%). These findings support our hypothesis that the two plasticity traits of openness to experience and extraversion are the more important predictors of CQ, explaining 74.2% of the total variance explained by the Big Five in the four CQ factors. In contrast, the stability traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability accounted for 25.8% of the total variance explained by the Big Five in CQ.

Discussion Although meta-​analytic research has offered compelling evidence on the outcomes of CQ, there are fewer conclusive insights on the antecedents of CQ. Our meta-​ analysis extends and elaborates on the nomological network of CQ by examining the antecedents of CQ. We focus on the Big Five personality traits because personality has long been theorized as important predictors of CQ and various studies have yielded mixed findings. Below, we discuss our key findings and their theoretical implications for CQ and personality research.

74    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang

1. Personality as Antecedents in CQ’s Nomological Network Our findings demonstrate that the Big Five traits are important antecedents to CQ. Our meta-​analytic correlations show that except for the emotional stability–​behavioral CQ relationship, all Big Five traits have positive and non-​zero relationships with all four CQ factors. Results also show that there is no significant variance in the effect sizes across primary studies, suggesting that the findings are generalizable across studies. Our findings underscore the importance of personality traits in advancing our understanding of why individuals differ in their CQ. Although CQ is a malleable individual difference construct that can be developed through experiences (Ang, Ng, & Rockstuhl, 2020; Ng, Van Dyne, & Ang, 2009; Sahin, Gürbüz, & Köksal, 2014), it is also influenced by stable traits such as personality. At the same time, our findings show that some CQ factors are more strongly related to personality than others. For instance, of the four CQ factors, motivational CQ is most related to personality traits, having the largest variance explained by the Big Five (R2 =​.26), while cognitive CQ is least related to personality (R2 =​.11). This finding could reflect the “will-​do” versus “can-​do” (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 2005) distinction for motivational CQ and cognitive CQ. Motivational CQ assesses one’s desire and confidence for crossing cultures and hence, taps more at “will-​do” motivational constructs such as personality. On the other hand, cognitive CQ assesses one’s knowledge of cultures and taps more at “can-​do” capabilities, which explains why it is less influenced by personality.

2. Differential Effects of Plasticity versus Stability Traits on CQ Importantly, our meta-​analysis sheds light on which personality traits predict CQ better. We predicted that plasticity traits of openness to experience and extraversion would help to develop CQ more than the stability traits of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and emotional stability. Results from relative importance analyses confirm our prediction. At the same time, results also highlight some unexpected findings, which we discuss below. First, while our findings support the relative importance of openess to experience and extraversion for motivational CQ and cognitive CQ, they suggest a more complex pattern of personality predictors for metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ. Specifically, openness to experience is the most important predictor of metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ, followed by all three traits of extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. These findings suggest that apart from the tendency to approach novel situations afforded by openness to experience and extraversion, metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ also benefit from the achievement-​striving tendencies of conscientiousness and the communion-​striving tendencies of agreeableness (Barrick, Mount, & Li,

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    75 2013). Specifically, these findings imply that conscientious and agreeable individuals are more likely to develop the capabilities to adapt their thinking (i.e., metacognitive CQ) and behaviors (behavioral CQ) during cross-​cultural interactions to meet their goals of achievement and harmony, respectively. Second, we unexpectedly found consistently weak relationships for emotional stability and CQ, with an insignificant effect for behavioral CQ. We had expected that the propensity to stay calm and composed to be more strongly related with motivational CQ (especially in remaining confident during cross-​cultural interactions). Our findings could be interpreted in light of Huang et al.’s (2014) meta-​analysis on personality and adaptive performance, a construct that similarly involves uncertainties and changes. The authors concluded that emotional stability is more important for reactive forms of adaptive (e.g., unexpected changes or emergencies) and less predictive of proactive forms of adaptive performance (e.g., seeking changes to achieve status or power). Given that CQ is an agentic capability rather than a reactive construct, our finding is consistent with Huang et al.’s (2014) conclusion. For personality research, our study offers new insights on the utility of the Big Five traits in predicting work effectiveness. Personality scholars have unanimously found conscientiousness to be the most important predictor of work performance while lamenting that openness to experience “consistently reported the lowest average true score correlations across criteria and occupational groups” (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001: 21). Our finding on openness to experience stands in sharp contrast with such a conclusion and joins more recent meta-​analyses in clarifying the utility of this “least understood” personality trait (McCrae, 1993). For instance, meta-​analyses have shown that openness to experience is predictive of proactive personality (Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010), career adaptability (Rudolph, Lavigne, & Zacher, 2017), and resilience (Oshio et al., 2018). These findings suggest that while conscientiousness is important in more routine tasks and environments, openness to experience is critical in a dynamic and diverse workplace. In addition, our research attests to the conceptual parsimony of theorizing higher-​ order personality effects. By matching the behavioral tendencies offered by the meta-​ traits of plasticity and stability to the specific capabilities of the four CQ factors, we offer a useful meta-​framework and approach for future personality research to elucidate potentially complex and messy relationships between the Big Five and outcomes of interest.

Practical Implications Our findings also have important practical implications for selection and training in organizations. In the context of selection, personality traits remain an intuitive and enduring form of selection criteria during job interviews (Sackett & Walmsley, 2014). Sackett and Walmsley also noted that amongst the personality traits, selection

76    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang interviews tend to focus most on conscientiousness (47%), followed by emotional stability (18%) and extraversion (18%). Our meta-​analysis highlights the importance of a neglected trait—​openness to experience, especially if the job entails culturally diverse interactions. Of course, an even more accurate and robust selection of employees for global work contexts would be to assess their CQ capabilities directly. In the context of training and development, our study suggests that employees with low openness to experience and low extraversion may be more in need of CQ training. These individuals are not only likely to be lower in their CQ, they may also be less inclined to seek or attend such training voluntarily. Thus, organizations designing CQ training and related interventions should prioritize these individuals whose jobs require them to interact with culturally diverse others and to consider ways to encourage them to attend and benefit from these interventions.

Future Research Directions The relevance and salience of CQ for people working in increasingly culturally diverse and global work environments will only increase. This offers many exciting opportunities for researchers to enhance our understanding of CQ. In closing this chapter, we offer a few potential areas of study that we believe are important next frontiers for CQ research in organizational contexts. First, future research could build on our current findings and deepen our understanding of the relationships between personality and CQ. For instance, the similar pattern of results for metacognitive CQ and behavioral CQ with conscientiousness and agreeableness triggers the possibility that both CQ capabilities tap on achievement as well as communion needs, thus opening up new ways of theorizing about personality and CQ. In addition, our finding that the Big Five is most strongly related to motivational CQ aligns with trait-​based motivational theories (e.g., see Kanfer, Frese, & Johnson, 2017) and suggests the possibility of a causal model where personality could influence motivational CQ, which in turn drives the development of meta-​cognitive CQ, cognitive CQ, and behavioral CQ. Future research on the relationship between personality and CQ could also move beyond the assumption of linear relationships between these constructs. For example, future research could explore the “too-​much-​of-​a-​good-​thing” effect (Pierce & Aguinis, 2013) for plasticity trait effects on CQ. Alternatively, future research could also adopt a person-​centered approach to probe further on how different configurations of personality traits affect CQ (e.g., Howard & Hoffman, 2018; Morin, Bujacz, & Gagné, 2018). For instance, future research could verify the presence of subgroups of people characterized by “plasticity” versus “stability” profiles and assess their relationships with CQ. Conversely, research could also adopt the person-​centered approach to identify different configurations of CQ and relate them to the various personality traits.

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    77 Second, future research could open the black box of mechanisms through which personality affects CQ. In the short term, our meta-​analysis provides a much-​needed first step in clarifying which personality traits relate to which CQ factors. Nevertheless, the field still needs additional research on mediating processes that shed light on why certain personality traits uniquely affect some CQ factors and not others. For example, we hypothesized that the meta-​traits of plasticity and stability affect CQ by influencing the extent to which individuals seek and engage in culturally novel and diverse experiences to develop their CQ. Future research might contrast this “situation-​selection” argument with a “behavioral-​adaptation” argument that personality traits predispose individuals to particular behaviors in intercultural encounters that differentially develop CQ over time. Third, we encourage future research to explore whether organizational practices can substitute for personality effects in the development of CQ. Situational strength theory (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010; Mischel, 1977) proposes that situations that include implicit or explicit cues about expected behaviors will decrease the influence of personality on behavior. Thus, the concept of situational strength raises the intriguing possibility that organizational practices that communicate expected behaviors could compensate for personality effects on CQ development. Research on newcomer socialization (e.g., Allen et al., 2017; Bauer et al., 2007) has identified several organizational socialization tactics that do just that and we are excited about the opportunity that future research could connect research on CQ with research on newcomer socialization. Finally, our findings, while confirming the importance of personality antecedents, also call for research on other antecedents and correlates of CQ to develop a more comprehensive nomological network of CQ. In addition to commonly reported antecedents such as international experience, Ang, Ng, & Rockstuhl (2020) urged for more research to explore the effects of identity (e.g., Ang, Rockstuhl, & Erez, forthcoming; Korzilius, Bücker, & Beerlage, 2017) and language competence (e.g., Wu & Ng, 2021) in furthering our understanding of why some individuals are more culturally intelligent than others.

Conclusion Our meta-​analytic findings of the Big Five and CQ add important insights to the nomological network of CQ. At the same time, they also extend our existing knowledge of the role of personality traits in the workplace. Results of numerous meta-​analyses have consistently named conscientiousness as the most important trait for work performance. Our research, by extending the meta-​analysis to the context of culturally diverse settings through CQ, shines a spotlight on the neglected trait of openness to experience. Across all four CQ factors, openness to experience emerges as the most predictive personality trait with large effect sizes. By conceptualizing the Big Five as the higher-​order traits of plasticity and stability, our meta-​analysis provides much-​needed clarity on how the Big

78    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang Five affect the four CQ factors differently and offers implications for future research on CQ and personality.

References Ackerman, P. L., & Humphreys, L. G. (1990). Individual differences theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 223–​282). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Chao, G. T., & Bauer, T. N. (2017). Taking stock of two relational aspects of organizational life: Tracing the history and shaping the future of socialization and mentoring research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 324–​337. Ang, S. (2021). Cultural intelligence: Two bowls singing. In X. P. Chen & H. K. Steensma (Eds.), A journey toward influential scholarship: Insights from leading management scholars (pp. 26–​ 51). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., & Rockstuhl, T. (2020). Cultural intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 820–​ 845). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ang. S., Rockstuhl, T., & Christopoulos, G. (2021). Cultural intelligence and leadership judgment & decision making: Ethnology and capabilities. In D. C. Kayes & A. B. Kayes (Eds.), Judgment and leadership: A multidisciplinary approach to concepts, practice, and development (pp. 168–​181). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ang, S., Rockstuhl, T., & Erez, M. (forthcoming). Cultural intelligence and global identity: Complementarity in global leadership. In M. Gelfand & M. Erez (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of culture and organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ang, S., & Van Dyne, L. (2008). Conceptualization of cultural intelligence: Definition, distinctiveness, and nomological network. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 3–​15). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Koh, C. (2006). Personality correlates of the four-​factor model of cultural intelligence. Group & Organization Management, 31(1), 100–​123. Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K. Y., Templer, K. J., Tay, C., & Chandrasekar, N. A. (2007). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335–​371. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18, 359–​372. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next?. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–​30. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, higher-​order goals, and job characteristics. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132–​153. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-​analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 707–​721. Bosco, F. A., Aguinis, H., Singh, K., Field, J. G., & Pierce, C. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431–​449.

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    79 Chan, M. (2020). rwa package for R. https://​git​hub.com/​martin​ctc/​rwa Chang, L., Connelly, B. S., & Geeza, A. A. (2012). Separating method factors and higher order traits of the Big Five: A meta-​analytic multitrait–​multimethod approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 408–​426. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-​like individual differences, state-​like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 835–​847. Chen, X. P., Liu, D., & Portnoy, R. (2012). A multilevel investigation of motivational cultural intelligence, organizational diversity climate, and cultural sales: Evidence from U.S. real estate firms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 93–​106. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I. S., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). The five-​factor model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-​analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–​1166. Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Mor, S. (2012). Collaborating across cultures: Cultural metacognition and affect-​based trust in creative collaboration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 116–​131. Costa Jr, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–​665. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–​302. DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-​order factors of the Big Five in a multi-​informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–​1151. DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Toward a theory of the Big Five. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 26–​33. DeYoung, C. G., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2002). Higher-​order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health?. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 533–​552. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-​factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–​440. Digman, J. M. (1997). Higher-​order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–​1256. Earley, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Eden, D. (2002). From the editors: Replication, meta-​analysis, scientific progress, and AMJ’s publication policy. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 841–​846. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-​Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–​42. Groves, K. S., & Feyerherm, A. E. (2011). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36, 535–​566. Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical models for meta-​analysis. Academic Press. Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-​centered, person-​centered, and person-​ specific approaches: Where theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 846–​876. Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Zabel, K. L., & Palmer, A. (2014). Personality and adaptive performance at work: a meta-​analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 162–​179. Huff, K. C., Song, P., & Gresch, E. B. (2014). Cultural intelligence, personality and cross-​ cultural adjustment: A study of expatriates. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 38, 151–​157.

80    T. Rockstuhl, K.Y. Ng, and S. Ang Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-​analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage. Johnson, J. W. (2000). A heuristic method for estimating the relative weight of predictor variables in multiple regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 1–​19. Johnson, J. W., & LeBreton, J. M. (2004). History and use of relative importance indices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 238–​257. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial/​organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 75–​170). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press. Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 338–​355. Korzilius, H., Bücker, J. J., & Beerlage, S. (2017). Multiculturalism and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of cultural intelligence. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 56, 13–​24. Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2013). Assessing cross-​cultural competence: A review of available tests. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology, 44, 849–​873. McCrae, R. R. (1993). Openness to experience as a basic dimension of personality. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 13, 39–​55. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121–​140. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–​352). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Morin, A. J., Bujacz, A., & Gagné, M. (2018). Person-​centered methodologies in the organizational sciences: Introduction to the feature topic. Organizational Research Methods, 21, 803–​813. Ng, K. Y., Van Dyne, L., & Ang, S. (2009). From experience to experiential learning: Cultural intelligence as a learning capability for global leader development. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 511–​526. Nimon, K. F., & Oswald, F. L. (2013). Understanding the results of multiple linear regression: Beyond standardized regression coefficients. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 650–​674. Ones, D. S. (1993). The construct validity of integrity tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Oshio, A., Taku, K., Hirano, M., & Saeed, G. (2018). Resilience and Big Five personality traits: A meta-​analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 127, 54–​60. Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-​much-​of-​a-​good-​thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39, 313–​338. Presbitero, A. (2016). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in virtual, cross-​ cultural interactions: Generalizability of measure and links to personality dimensions and task performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 50, 29–​38. Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-​Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., . . . & Funder, D. C. (2014). The Situational Eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 677–​7 18. Raver, J. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2017). Developing cultural intelligence. In K. G. Brown (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of workplace training and employee development (pp. 407–​440). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cultural Intelligence and Personality    81 Rockstuhl, T., & Ng, K. Y. (2008). The effects of cultural intelligence on interpersonal trust in multicultural teams. In S. Ang & L. Van Dyne (Eds.), Handbook of cultural intelligence (pp. 206–​220). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Rockstuhl, T., Seiler, S., Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., & Annen, H. (2011). Beyond general intelligence (IQ) and emotional intelligence (EQ): The role of cultural intelligence (CQ) on cross-​border leadership effectiveness in a globalized world. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 825–​840. Rockstuhl, T., & Van Dyne, L. (2018). A bi-​factor theory of the four-​factor model of cultural intelligence: Meta-​analysis and theoretical extensions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 124–​144. Rudolph, C. W., Lavigne, K. N., & Zacher, H. (2017). Career adaptability: A meta-​analysis of relationships with measures of adaptivity, adapting responses, and adaptation results. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 98, 17–​34. Sackett, P. R., Lievens, F., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Kuncel, N. R. (2017). Individual differences and their measurement: A review of 100 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 254–​273. Sackett, P. R., & Walmsley, P. T. (2014). Which personality attributes are most important in the workplace?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 538–​551. Şahin, F., Gürbüz, S., & Köksal, O. (2014). Cultural intelligence (CQ) in action: The effects of personality and international assignment on the development of CQ. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 39, 152–​163. Schlaegel, C., Richter, N. F., & Taras, V. (2021). Cultural intelligence and work-​related outcomes: A meta-​analytic examination of joint effects and incremental predictive validity. Journal of World Business, 56(4), 101209. Sherman, R. A., Rauthmann, J. F., Brown, N. A., Serfass, D. G., & Jones, A. B. (2015). The independent effects of personality and situations on real-​time expressions of behavior and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 872–​888. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A framework for understanding conceptions of intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg & D. K. Detterman (Eds.), What is intelligence? Contemporary viewpoints on its nature and definition (pp. 3–​15). New York, NY: Ablex. Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta‐analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275–​300. Tonidandel, S., LeBreton, J. M., & Johnson, J. W. (2009). Determining the statistical significance of relative weights. Psychological Methods, 14, 387–​399. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., Ng, K. Y., Rockstuhl, T., Tan, M. L., & Koh, C. (2012). Sub-​dimensions of the four factor model of cultural intelligence: Expanding the conceptualization and measurement of cultural intelligence. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 295–​313. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-​analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–​48. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-​analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–​885. Wu, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2021). Cultural intelligence and language competence: Synergistic effects on avoidance, task performance, and voice behaviors in multicultural teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 70, 1512–​1542. Zell, E., & Lesick, T. L. (2021). Big five personality traits and performance: A quantitative synthesis of 50+​meta-​analyses. Journal of Personality, 00, 1–​15.

chapter 7

M anagers’ Re g u l atory F o cu s, Expl orat i on-​ Expl oitati on, a nd Tem p oral Amb i de xt e ri t y Toward a Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship Aybars Tuncdogan, Paavo Ritala, and Päivi Karhu

In recent years, as a result of the micro-​foundations (Aguinis & Molina-​Azorín, 2015; Ferraris et al., 2022; Foss, 2011; Jafari-​Sadeghi, Mahdiraji, Alam, & Mazzoleni, 2023; Sheehan, Garavan, & Morley, 2023; Tuncdogan, Lindgreen, Volberda, & van den Bosch, 2019b; Tuncdogan, Lindgreen, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2019a) movement, key streams of research in management including the intertwined literatures on exploration-​exploitation behavior and ambidexterity, have begun focusing on the individual manager level of analysis (Mom, Fourne, & Jansen, 2015; Stokes et al., 2015; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015). More recently, the micro-​foundations movement was further enriched by the emergence of behavioral perspective (Das, 2014; Hodgkinson, Hughes, & Leite, 2023; Powell, 2014; Powell, Lovallo, & Fox, 2011; Sibony, Lovallo, & Powell, 2017), which suggests that psychological theories are able to explain a different part of the variance observed in management phenomena than can theories of economics and organizational design (also see Levinthal, 2011). As a result of these theoretical developments, the use of psychological theories in management research at the individual manager level was increased in general (e.g., Kisfalvi, Sergi, & Langley, 2016; Schijven & Hitt, 2012; Schmitt et al., 2016), and within the exploration-​exploitation literature in particular (e.g., Durcikova et al., 2011; Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Tuncdogan & Volberda, 2020).

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    83 So far, one of the key perspectives used to explain managers’ exploration-​exploitation activities has been the regulatory focus theory (Ahmadi et al., 2017; Kammerlander et al., 2015; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2017). With origins in experimental psychology, the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) is a popular theory of goal attainment with implications for various fields including general psychology (e.g., Zhang, Cornwell, & Higgins, 2014), organizational behavior (e.g., Johnson et al., 2015), leadership (e.g., Tuncdogan, Acar, & Stam, 2017), behavioral finance (e.g., Magendans, Gutteling, & Zebel, 2017) and marketing (e.g., Allen, Eilert, & Peloza, 2018). In recent years, a few different studies have contributed to our understanding of the relationship between regulatory focus and exploration-​exploitation at the individual manager (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2017; Mom, Tuncdogan, & van den Bosch, 2019; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020; Tuncdogan & Volberda, 2020; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015), CEO (e.g., Kammerlander et al., 2015) and business unit (Tuncdogan et al., 2017) levels of analysis. In particular, these studies have suggested that a promotion focus shifts the exploration–​exploitation balance relatively more toward exploration, whereas a prevention focus shifts it relatively more toward exploitation. However, while a relationship exists between regulatory focus and exploration–​exploitation—​which suggests a strong possibility of some kind of (linear or non-​linear) link to ambidexterity as well—​little is known about the dynamic, longer-​term relationship between regulatory focus and ambidexterity. That is—​ how does managers’ regulatory focus affect choices to explore and exploit over time, and under what conditions does the regulatory focus, as well as shorter-​term “regulatory state” of managers, get modified? These are crucial questions, given the fact that managerial decision with regards to whether to explore or exploit is a decisive one for organizational performance both short and long term (Boumgarden, Nickerson, & Zenger, 2012; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996;). In this chapter, we build a dynamic feedback model providing further insight into the longitudinal process between regulatory focus and temporal ambidexterity at the individual manager level. In the management literature there has been an on-​going discussion, whether “simultaneous” or “contextual” ambidexterity is possible at lower levels of analysis, such as the level of the individual manager (e.g., Cao, Gedajlovic, & Zhang, 2009; Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2009; Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010; Mom, Fourné, & Jansen, 2015; Mom, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009, among others). In this regard, the discussion is still evolving, and no consensus is set whether managers are actually able to simultaneously explore and exploit. However, the scholars seem to agree that “temporal” or “sequential” ambidexterity (e.g., Boumgarden, Nickerson, & Zenger, 2012; Siggelkow & Levinthal, 2003) is possible at all levels of analysis, including that of the individual manager (Good & Michel, 2013; Stokes et al., 2015; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Yet, despite being one of the few instances of consensus in the literature, research investigating temporal ambidexterity of the individual manager is rare, if not non-​existent. Toward this purpose, we employ the regulatory focus theory: Unlike the temporal ambidexterity research at the individual manager level—​which is mostly overlooked—​ regulatory focus is a well-​researched and mature construct. More importantly, it

84    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu is already being used to explain managers’ exploration and exploitation behaviors (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2017; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015). In other words, considering that it already is able to help explain managers’ exploration and exploitation activities at a given point in time, building a model that focuses on the change in regulatory focus over time to explain temporal ambidexterity of the managers is quite intuitive. In this chapter, we build a dynamic model of managers’ temporal ambidexterity using a simple feedback loop. We believe that the simple but straightforward and easily extendable nature of this model will provide a theoretical starting point and help invigorate research on temporal ambidexterity at the individual manager level. From this foundation, we also identify several potential model extensions and implications for managerial temporal ambidexterity. The contributions and implications of this study are reviewed more elaborately in the discussion section.

Theory Regulatory Focus Theory Regulatory focus theory examines avoiding pain and approaching pleasure are two distinct ways of goal attainment (e.g., Arnold et al., 2014; Hamstra et al., 2014; Higgins, 1998). Individuals differ in terms of how strong their need for security versus the need for nurturance is. In other words, some individuals are focused relatively more on avoiding pain and others on approaching pleasure. The chronic nature of the regulatory focus determines the individual’s default strategy for coping with the environment, whereas its ability to shift temporarily in accordance with contextual elements allows the individual to adapt to daily changes in the environment (Tuncdogan, Acar, & Stam, 2017; Wallace, Johnson & Frazier, 2009). We will return to this discussion in the next section. The “approaching pleasure” component of regulatory focus associated with the need for nurturance is promotion focus. Key concepts associated with a promotion focus include “advancement, growth, aspirations and accomplishment” (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998: 287). Likewise, the “avoiding pain” component of regulatory focus associated with “security, responsibilities and safety” (ibid.) is the prevention focus. In a prevention focus, individuals focus on avoiding mistakes, undesired states and outcomes, and ensuring that they stay above a certain benchmark (e.g., Johnson et al., 2015). That is, they focus on minimizing “misses” rather than maximizing “hits” (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), which is also called “avoidance strategic means” (Higgins et al., 2001). As a result, individuals in a prevention focus have a detail-​oriented local processing style (e.g., Förster & Higgins, 2005), frame situations in terms of losses versus non-​ losses (e.g., Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000) and avoid risk-​taking behaviors (e.g., Hamstra, Bolderdijk, & Veldstra, 2011). In contrast, in a promotion focus, individuals

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    85 aim to reach gains, desired states and outcomes, and focus on maximizing “hits” rather than minimizing “misses” (Crowe & Higgins, 1997), which is also called “approach strategic means” (Higgins et al., 2001). Individuals in a promotion focus have a global processing style that allows them to see the big picture rather than the details (e.g., Förster & Higgins, 2005), they frame situations in terms of gains versus non-​gains (e.g., Idson et al., 2000) and are willing to engage in risk-​taking behaviors (e.g., Hamstra, Bolderdijk, & Veldstra, 2011). Prevention and promotion focus have various effects on an individual’s decision-​making tendencies (Zhou & Pham, 2004), preferences (Wang & Lee, 2006) and strategic inclinations (Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Tuncdogan et al., 2017), and both types of focus bring value to an organization.

Types of Regulatory Focus When we consider regulatory focus in terms of its relationship to time—​which will be necessary to explain the dynamic interplay between regulatory focus and temporal ambidexterity—​there are three kinds of regulatory focus (Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015; Wallace, Johnson, & Frazier, 2009). The “chronic” or “trait-​like” regulatory focus of an individual is mostly a product of an individual’s upbringing, and stays quite stable in the long-​term (Keller & Bless, 2006; Wallace, Johnson, & Frazier, 2009). Contextual factors can temporarily shift the regulatory focus of an individual, allowing him or her to accommodate changes in the environment (e.g., Hekman, Van Knippenberg, & Pratt, 2016; Kark, Katz-​Navon & Delegach, 2015; Stam, Knippenberg & Wisse, 2010). For instance, in nature, even the most promotion-​focused human being would become temporarily very prevention focused while being attacked by a wild animal. Same thing is true in our daily lives as well; the threatening behavior of a customer toward a salesperson or a lucrative opportunity for making large sums of money would temporarily shift a person’s regulatory focus towards prevention or promotion. The resulting regulatory focus at that given moment can be called as the “regulatory state” of an individual (e.g., Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015). Assuming no external influences, the regulatory state of an individual at a given time would be equal to his or her chronic regulatory focus. That is, chronic regulatory focus determines the default regulatory state of an individual. While the effects of contextual elements are temporary, their continuous existence within the environment can cause them to have an enduring effect on an individual’s regulatory focus. For instance, a bureaucratic organization or the transactional leadership style of one’s manager would make an individual relatively more prevention focused at work, whereas a supportive environmental climate and a transformational leader would make him or her relatively more promotion focused (e.g., Kark & van Dijk, 2007; Schuh et al., 2016; Weber & Mayer, 2011). The term coined by Wallace, Johnson, and Frazier (2009) to refer to this enduring state of regulatory focus induced by the organizational context is “regulatory focus at workplace” (to keep it generic, we will refer to this construct as “regulatory focus in the organizational context”). Wallace, Johnson,

86    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu

Relatively stable over lifetime

Chronic Regulatory Focus

Relatively stable in the organizational context

Ephemeral

Regulatory Focus in the Organizational Context

Regulatory State

Enduring Contextual Elements

Temporary Contextual Elements

Figure 7.1  Different types of regulatory focus, from a temporal perspective

& Frazier (2009) show that the main variable the regulatory focus at workplace construct has the strongest correlation with is the chronic regulatory focus, which is in line with the assumptions of the regulatory focus theory. The relationships between different kinds of regulatory focus constructs are outlined in Figure 7.1.

Exploration-​Exploitation and Temporal Ambidexterity Ambidexterity (e.g., Knight & Cuganesan, 2019; Martin, Keller, & Fortwengel, 2019) at a general level refers to the organizational ability to both explore and exploit. Exploring refers to “search for new, useful adaptations,” and exploiting to “the use and propagation of known adaptations” (Fang, Lee, & Schilling, 2010: 626). March discussed firms’ exploitation actions as “refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, [and] execution” and noted that its opposite, exploration tasks are characterized by “search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, [and] innovation” (1991: 71). Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda (2009) defined the requirements of exploitation as having “[a]‌lot of experience, routine, short-​term goals, present knowledge” (p. 820), and those of exploration as “[s]earching for new possibilities, evaluating diverse options, adaptability, new skills” (p. 820). Exploration and exploitation activities together can be thus seen as the fundamental factors that generate organizational performance (Boumgarden, Nickerson, & Zenger, 2012), and successful application of both has been considered as necessary for the survival of organizations as well as the key search choices for managers as they seek for solutions to both local and distant managerial problems (Baum, Li, & Usher, 2000; Levinthal & March, 1993).

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    87 Generally, exploration and exploitation activities can be organized through dual structures of the organization (Duncan, 1976) or contextually by creating the necessary behavioral routines and flexibility (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) that allow (at least seemingly) simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation. However, organizations can also choose to vacillate between periods of high exploration and exploitation to improve their chances of long-​term survival and performance (e.g., Boumgarden, Nickerson, & Zenger, 2012; Simsek, 2009). This vacillation between exploration and exploitation at different times is conceptualized as temporal ambidexterity. The benefits of temporal separation of exploration and exploitation activities has been suggested by many scholars, including Nickerson and Zenger (2002), Puranam, Singh, and Zoilo (2006), as well as Siggelkow and Levinthal (2003). Furthermore, temporal ambidexterity has also been discussed as cyclical ambidexterity (Simsek et al., 2009), punctuated ambidexterity (Dixon, Meyer, & Day, 2007; Helfat & Raubitschek, 2000; Rothaermel & Deeds, 2004; Winter & Szulanski, 2001) more recently, temporal switching (Knight & Paroutis, 2017). The core idea across all these perspectives is to develop the ability to perform two seemingly incompatible activities, but undertake these conflicting tasks at different points in time (Markides, 2013). This refers to creation of discrete phases of exploration followed by exploitation, whereby the sustainability is achieved through the accumulation of outputs over time (Benner & Tushman, 2003). Please note that these studies were conducted at organization or business unit levels of analysis, and research on temporal ambidexterity at the individual level is very limited, if not non-​existent. Despite the increased awareness of the importance of supporting both exploration and exploitation in the long run, many organizations’ endeavor to achieve high levels of both and obtain ambidexterity has been considered a challenge confirmed by the past research (e.g., Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). This challenge emerges from the observation that exploration and exploitation represent two fundamentally different notions (He & Wong, 2004): while the individuals cognitively (and behaviorally) process the requirements of these opposites, they are required to hold opposite mindsets and modes of learning (March, 1991) as well as establish different processes and routines (Burgelman, 2002). Therefore, the question of how individuals cognitively manage this challenge still remains (e.g., Eisenhardt, Furr, & Bingham, 2010; Good & Michel, 2013). On an individual and managerial level, such temporal ambidexterity refers to the ability to switch between alternative contingent approaches (Knight & Paroutis, 2017; Lewis & Smith, 2014). The contingency approach is based on choice, where the individuals switch between the conflicting demands: once their attention is drawn to one opposite (e.g., exploitation), they are rushed to pay attention to the other (e.g., exploration) (Gaim & Wåhlin, 2016). In a broader sense, temporal ambidexterity has also been theoretically anchored to the notion of punctuated equilibrium, which was introduced by psychologist Kurt Lewin (1947, 1951). He illustrated change with a “quasi-​ stationary social equilibrium” model, which describes change as a three-​stage process of unfreezing the present level, moving to the new level, and finally freezing the new level reached (Lewin, 1951). Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) described the successful process of punctuated equilibrium as moments of rapid change: “long periods of gradual

88    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu change were interrupted periodically by massive discontinuities” (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996: 12). These suggestions are further supported by recent findings of Stokes et al. (2015), who found that individuals can express “micro-​moments” of exploration and exploitation and, by doing so, switch between the two search strategies, depending on the organizational context, as well as their own aspirations. Gersick (1988) found that similar patterns can be observed in project groups’ behavior in how they approach their work, alternating between inertial change and revolution, which “did not develop in uniform series of stages, nor through linear, additive building block sequences” (Gersick, 1991: 13). Gersick (1991) found that the changes were “more abrupt and comprehensive” (p. 14). The trials for only marginal changes will be resisted and thereby only revolutionary change that adopts a completely new set of choices can bypass the change resistance (Nickerson & Zenger, 2002). Finally, another theory that supports the temporal switching concept can be found in adult development research. Levinson (1986) described how individuals develop through switching between periods of transition and stability; the structure evolves through a sequence of steady (structure-​building) periods and transitional (structure-​changing) periods. Psychology research provides further arguments to why temporality—​rather than simultaneity—​of exploration and exploitation might be a more preferable option for managers. Research on the lateralization of the human brain has discovered that under standard circumstances, the left and right hemispheres of the human brain are responsible for very different type of functions. Finkelstein and Hambrick (1996) explained that individuals with dominant left hemispheres—​that concentrate on logic and rational thinking—​may make them good at planning. In turn, individuals who have the domination on their right hemispheres—​that focus on imagination, creativity, visual imagery, and emotional response—​may become good at management or leadership activities. Thereby, the right hemisphere is concerned with holistic, intuitive and creative issues and can be related to qualities for exploration activities, whereas the left hemisphere is concerned with analytical, logical, and sequential operations, which refer to the skills needed for exploitation. Attempts to carry out such opposite tasks simultaneously may expose individuals to cognitive strain. In fact, also contextual ambidexterity (e.g., Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004) can be seen as not fully simultaneous. Rather, it refers to very frequent switching, where individuals engage exploration and exploitation seemingly simultaneously and switch between tasks very frequently (Good & Michel, 2013), as the human brain is not capable of such simultaneous functions. Despite the arguments discussed thus far and evidence that concerns the differences in required skills and mindset of exploration and exploitation, ambidexterity literature is still undecided whether exploration and exploitation are best understood as two separate constructs or two ends of the same continuum. Moreover, some researchers argue that even if they are two separate constructs at higher levels of analyses, they may not be at the individual manager level (e.g., Gupta, Smith, & Shalley, 2006). Other researchers have contributed to this discussion by showing that exploration and exploitation can be orthogonal also at the individual manager level (e.g., Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda,

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    89 2009). Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang (2009) term the view that assumes that exploration and exploitation can be simultaneously maximized as the combined dimension of ambidexterity and the view that ambidexterity is the middle-​point on a unidimensional continuum of exploration–​exploitation as the balance dimension of ambidexterity. Then they hypothesize that even if the combined dimension of ambidexterity is possible at the individual manager level, the balance dimension of ambidexterity may be relatively more relevant. This view is supported by the thus-​far discussed attention allocation and cognitive difficulties in the actual simultaneity of exploration and exploitation at the individual manager level. In this chapter, we choose not to tackle this discussion further than this, as it has been a key question in the field and is beyond the scope of this chapter. Instead, we focus on the points of consensus. Regardless of whether they believe “combined dimension of ambidexterity” is possible or not at the individual manager level, the majority of researchers agree that (1) an individual can gain ambidexterity over time by engaging in some exploration and some exploitation activities, (2) balance dimension of ambidexterity is still of relevance. Hence, we are not suggesting that the combined dimension of ambidexterity is not relevant or not possible, but for analytical reasons we focus on temporal ambidexterity and in so doing follow the “balance dimension” approach.

Managers’ Regulatory Focus and Exploration–​Exploitation Activities Regulatory focus is a two-​dimensional construct, and promotion and prevention are operationalized as two separate variables. However, when the two regulatory focus dimensions compete, such as in the case of the unidimensional balance of exploration–​ exploitation, the relative strength of the two foci—​known as the “dominant regulatory focus”—​becomes the deciding factor (e.g., Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002). As discussed in the previous section, in this chapter our aim is to gain a better understanding of temporal ambidexterity, which is an extension of the “balance dimension of ambidexterity” (Cao, Gedajlovic, & Zhang, 2009) concept. That is, because we are trying to explain the relative balance of exploration and exploitation, we will follow Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002) and focus on the relative strength of the two regulatory focus dimensions in comparison to each other. Recently, a number of studies put regulatory focus forward as an antecedent of exploration and exploitation tendencies. Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, and Volberda (2015) built a model, where they proposed regulatory focus as an antecedent of exploration and exploitation, and examined the moderating roles of decision-​making autonomy and environmental ambiguity. Ahmadi, Khanagha, and Jansen (2017) focused on and tested the exploration side of the relationship. Mom, Tuncdogan, and van den Bosch (2019) suggested that a manager being relatively more promotion focused was

90    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu associated with higher levels of exploration whereas the manager being relatively more prevention focused was associated with higher levels of exploitation and also that environmental dynamism and decentralization are antecedents of regulatory focus at workplace. Finally, Kammerlander et al.(2015) and Tuncdogan et al. (2017) contributed to the discussion by taking an upper-​echelons perspective. Of these two studies, Tuncdogan et al. (2017) examined how the regulatory focus of a business unit’s management team affects its exploratory innovation and proposed decentralization and connectedness as mediators of this relationship. On the other hand, Kammerlander et al. (2015) investigated how companies’ exploration and exploitation are affected by the regulatory focus of their CEOs. There are a number of reasons why the prior literature suggests a relationship between regulatory focus and managers exploration–​exploitation activities. For example, individuals in a promotion focus are more willing to take risks than those in a prevention focus (e.g., Gino & Margolis, 2011; Hamstra, Bolderdijk, & Veldstra, 2011; van Noort, Kerkhof, & Fennis, 2007), are more entrepreneurial (e.g., Brockner, Higgins, & Low, 2004; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008), focus on the future (e.g., Pennington & Roese, 2003; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020), are less fearful of change (e.g., Boldero & Higgins, 2011; Liberman et al., 1999), are more likely to engage in and promote creative behaviors (e.g., Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008; Wu et al., 2008), process information globally (i.e., the “big picture”—​Förster & Higgins, 2005) and are interested in maximizing their gains (Higgins, 1998; Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000; Jain, Agrawal, & Maheswaran, 2006). These tendencies make them more prone to engaging in exploratory activities, which involve higher risks and radical change but can also result in above average profits (e.g., Jansen et al., 2016; Jansen, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006; March, 1991; Mom, Fourné, & Jansen, 2015; Wang, van de Vrande, & Jansen, 2017). In contrast, individuals in a prevention focus aim to keep the status quo (e.g., Bolder & Higgins, 2011; Liberman et al., 1999), process information locally (i.e., “attention to detail”—​Förster & Higgins, 2005; McMullen et al., 2009) and aim to ensure satisficing a certain minimum threshold rather than maximizing gains (Higgins, 1998; Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2000; Jain, Agrawal, & Maheswaran, 2006). These make them more prone to exploitation activities than exploration activities, as the former involves refining the existing than creating the novel, and therefore results in smaller but more reliable yield (e.g., Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009). In conclusion, research so far suggests that a higher or heightened level of promotion focus shifts managers’ exploration–​exploitation balance relatively toward exploration, whereas a higher or heightened level of prevention focus shifts the balance relatively toward exploitation. More specifically, a more salient state of promotion focus—​stemming either from his or her chronic promotion focus or due to enduring and temporary environmental elements (e.g., Figure 7.1)—​will cause a manager to spend relatively more resources on exploration and therefore relatively less on exploitation, whereas a more salient state of prevention focus will cause him or her to spend less resources on exploration and more on exploitation.

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    91

The Effects of Short-​Term and Long-​Term Performance Outcomes on Managers’ Regulatory Foci in the Organizational Context Until now, we have introduced our key concepts, described different kinds of regulatory foci and the link between regulatory focus and managers’ exploration–​exploitation tendencies. In this section, we will discuss the feedback loop, where performance-​ related feedback is used to update a manager’s regulatory focus. In particular, we will describe how short-​term and long-​term performance failures as well as successes affect regulatory focus in the organizational context. A short-​term failure decreases one’s resources which include financial resources, mental resources, and social resources, decreasing buffers and making future failure costlier. As a result, after failing a short-​term goal, the individual becomes relatively more prevention focused (i.e., shifts the promotion–​prevention balance relatively toward prevention), which activates the prevention system that puts the individual into a local processing mode. This mode makes him/​her more detail-​oriented and helps to minimize mistakes, increasing exploitation activities (e.g., Higgins et al., 2001; Pennington & Roese, 2003). This allows the individual to better fit the environment he or she is in and the tasks he or she is required to complete in that environment. From a behavioral standpoint, local search helps managers to avoid mistakes, given the high familiarity and reliability associated with local problem domains (e.g., Helfat, 1994; Knudsen & Levinthal, 2007; Ritala, Heiman, & Hurmelinna-​Laukkanen, 2016). Further, while failure to meet aspirations is suggested to increase risk-​taking in behavioral theory and related problemistic search literature (Cyert & March, 1963), we argue that this is true more of long-​term performance failures, while in the short-​term, poor performance leads to avoidance of risks (see e.g., Bromiley & Wasburn, 2011). A short-​term success, on the other hand, increases resources, creating a safe buffer between the individual and short-​term threats (such as not being able to fulfill obligations). As a result, short-​term successes decrease prevention focus, meaning that they shift the individual relatively toward a promotion focus, which shifts the exploration–​exploitation balance toward exploration. Or in other words, the performance feedback accumulated through short-​term success allows more space for moving to promotion focus, and in the exploration of more distant problems, aligned with managerial longer-​term goals. This line of reasoning is in parallel with organizational search literature in that availability slack resources might lead to more search (for a recent review, see Posen et al., 2018). As McGrath, (1999), points out: “availability of slack, meaning resources not yet committed to other firm efforts, permits experimentation to occur” (p. 21). The nature of a long-​term performance failure is significantly different to a short-​term one. However, first, it is worth mentioning that while we directly link exploitation with an increase in short-​term performance, we do not do the same between exploitation and long-​ term performance, for two reasons. First, the individual manager needs to be able to survive

92    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu in the short term to be able to survive in the long term. This is broadly recognized in the ambidexterity literature where exploitation is mainly seen as responsible for survival in the short term, but the engagement in both exploration and exploitation (i.e., ambidexterity) is responsible for survival in the long term (Probst, Raisch, & Tushman, 2011). Secondly, following Holmqvist (2004), exploration turns into performance only after some level of exploitation that follows it, meaning that exploration needs exploitation to result in performance. For instance, one may come up with a new technological concept, but it is necessary to refine it and resolve implementation issues before it becomes a product. In contrast to short-​term performance one, a long-​term performance failure (such as realizing that one is in a career where he or she is unlikely to succeed) suggests a large-​ scale strategic problem—​one cannot be easily resolved by simply engaging in more of the same activities (i.e., exploitation) but requires changing one’s overall direction (exploration). Individuals assess their long-​term performance levels by comparing them to their long-​term aspirations. Hence, depending on their chronic regulatory foci, individuals have different lifetime goals they strive for (e.g., Johnson et al., 2015; Manczak, Zapata-​Gietl, & McAdams, 2014) and whether their actual progress is in line with their goals determines their satisfaction with their strategic direction. For instance, even if an individual has reliable short-​term performance (e.g., an individual is doing well at his or her job and receives high supervisor ratings) the satisfaction with strategic direction may be low. In particular, a highly promotion-​focused individual with very high long-​term expectations (e.g., desire to become a billionaire) may be dissatisfied with his or her strategic direction despite having a good short-​term performance. In contrast to a short-​term performance failure, a long-​term performance failure activates the promotion system, which puts the individual into a global processing mode allowing him or her to see the big picture (e.g., Förster & Higgins, 2005), increases risk-​taking tendencies (e.g., Higgins et al., 2001; Pennington & Roese, 2003) and increases exploration activities (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2017; Tuncdogan et al., 2017). This is in line with the problemistic search literature, where the failure to meet the aspirations leads the manager more inductive to higher risks (for discussion, see e.g., Desai, 2016; Posen et al., 2018). In contrast, long-​term successes decrease promotion focus and exploration tendencies. This is because given that reaching the long-​term goals represents performance feedback, which suggests that continuing search for other alternatives is no longer necessary. This allows the individual to concentrate on the profitable activity he or she has found—​until a performance feedback from the environment suggests that a change is needed again. In other words, for example, if an individual is looking for a lucrative job and happens to fine one equal to or better than his or her standards, now the goal would be to adapt to that job and fulfill its requirements (prevention focus/​exploitation), not search for yet another alternative (promotion focus/​exploration). Here, our argument is again aligned with the problemistic search literature, which broadly assumes that acknowledged performance improvements lead to stopping of the search (Posen et al., 2018). The resulting theoretical model of this conceptual study is outlined in Figure 7.2. So far, we have built our arguments on the psychological theory of regulatory focus as well as behavioral theory. Supported by that, we argue that managers are inclined to a chronic regulatory focus that is linked to their general preference between exploration

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    93

Short-term Performance

Chronic Regulatory Focus

Regulatory Focus in the Organizational Context

Regulatory State

Exploration vs. Exploitation Balance (at a Given Time)

Temporal Ambidexterity

Satisfaction with Strategic Direction Long-term Performance

Figure 7.2  Conceptual model

and exploitation, but their particular choices of when to explore or exploit are highly contextual. Thus, this dynamic model shows the short-​term and long-​term performance endeavors and the received feedback effect on managers’ exploration and exploitation choices over time. In doing so, it does not only depict a static snapshot of exploration and exploitation aspirations and their achievement, but the temporal process of managerial individual ambidexterity. While the current chapter provides rationale on how regulatory focus affects temporal ambidexterity, the model in this chapter can be potentially extended in order to account for the other, more fine-​grained contextual phenomena. In the following, we provide a number of illustrative examples of how managerial ambidexterity research could build on and contribute to this model. In particular, we propose to extend the model by taking into account the micro-​dynamics in temporal switching of regulatory states, formal and informal performance feedback, and the role of supervisor ratings and self-​monitoring as well as other types of ambidexterity, and provide a discussion on the propositions in the following.

Illustrative Examples to Potential Extensions of the Model Micro-​dynamics in Temporal Switching of Regulatory States While our model provides a basic feedback loop updating manager’s regulatory focus, the concept of “micro-​moments” (see Stokes et al., 2015) can further enhance our

94    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu understanding of the feedback loop described in our model. Managers’ temporary regulatory states might change quite fast based on various types of performance feedback they get from their environment, an issue also supported by psychology literature where fast temporal switching between exploration and exploitation has been noted (cf. Good & Michel, 2003). We suggest that various types of micro-​moments can temporarily shift the regulatory state of a manager, causing him or her to temporarily act differently than the chronic regulatory focus would suggest. For instance, a typically prevention focused manager might be alerted by a sudden disruption in the organizational context, and pulled to a promotion state where exploratory search processes are activated. Further, when managers confront problems that have multiple components, and are at least partially decomposable, they might engage into both local and distant search (see Ritala, Heiman, & Hurmelinna-​Laukkanen, 2016). Here, the temporal oscillation between exploitative strategies for resolving a managerial problem, and explorative strategies for solving different components of that problem might be quite fast. Future research can adopt this problem-​based perspective (see also Nickerson & Zenger, 2002) of managerial search behavior to help explain when and why managers are able to focus to both exploration and exploitation within sufficiently short timeframes. Moreover, certain individual differences can also further increase our understanding of micro-​moments, and therefore the specifics of how our model should develop. For instance, the extent to which an individual has an internal versus and external locus of control may affect the behavioral consequences of explorative and exploitative micro-​ moments. In particular, individuals with an internal locus of control perceive “positive and negative events as consequences of one’s own behavior and as being under one’s personal control,” whereas those with an external locus of control believe “that these events are not contingent on one’s behavior, but are reliant upon factors such as fate, luck, or chance” (Ward & Kennedy, 1992: 176). As a result, in comparison to the individuals with internal loci of control, the individuals with external loci of control may be less likely to update their regulatory foci and goals after receiving feedback, and even less likely to do so in the face of an abrupt and fleeting change in the environment, such as a micro-​ moment. That is, an external focus of control may negatively moderate the effects of micro-​moments. Another trait that may suppress these oscillations in managers’ exploration–​ exploitation behaviors is the preference for consistency, defined as “a tendency to base one’s responses to incoming stimuli on the implications of existing (prior entry) variables, such as previous expectancies, commitment and choices” (Cialdini, Trost, & Newsom, 1995: 318) and is “associated with a desire to appear consistent to other people” (Leary & Allen, 2011). While an external locus of control may prevent an individual from updating his or her regulatory focus in the face of incoming feedback, a preference for consistency may not inhibit the regulatory focus update but moderate the link between regulatory focus and the behavioral outcome. That is, a preference for consistency may compel individuals to maintain their exploration and exploitation levels (i.e., not oscillate) even if their regulatory states temporarily change for a brief period of time. Yet some other traits, such as neuroticism (e.g., Smith, Saklofske, & Nordstokke, 2014; Hill

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    95 et al., 2016) may not suppress but further amplify the abrupt behavioral effects of micro-​ moments, causing visible peaks and troughs in managers’ exploration and exploitation behaviors. Finally, studies looking at shorter intervals of managerial temporal ambidexterity should take into account the associated micro-​foundational challenges. In this regard, psychologists have discussed the cognitive models of multitasking ranging from concurrent multitasking to task switching to sequential switching (e.g., Monsell, 2003). The downside of the switching, which cognitive psychologists call the cognitive switching penalty (Rubinstein, Meyer, & Evans, 2001), refers to the wasted effort and time that is required to reorient oneself to the task again.

Individual Differences in Receiving Performance Feedback Our model provides a basic feedback loop updating manager’s regulatory focus. This framework can also be extended to account for the effects of different types of feedback on regulatory focus updates, and the individual differences in receiving them. For example, high self-​monitors (Deaux & Snyder, 2012; Snyder, 1974), high reality monitors (Johnson & Raye, 1981; Sugimori et al., 2014), extraverted individuals with a tendency to engage in internal and external advice-​seeking behaviors (e.g., Alexiev et al., 2010; Heyden et al., 2013) may receive more feedback and update their regulatory foci more frequently. For example, using a version of this model extended in this direction, one can provide explanations for the relative success of high self-​monitors in organizational settings beyond their superior political skills. In particular, this extension suggests that high-​self monitors receive more frequent information from the environment, and thus, update their regulatory focus accordingly. Moreover, it implies that low self-​monitoring individuals are more likely to engage in exploratory activities and radical change after failing a step of career progression. However, it is generally easier to transfer to a new job before failing a promotion than after failing one. In other words, it is likely that high self-​monitors foresee the upcoming failure and start engaging in exploration activities (which may involve looking for a new job) before the disaster happens. In contrast, low self-​monitors are likely to move toward exploration activities after the grand failure and may get stuck in their jobs unless they are fired.

Extending the Model to Explain Other Types of Ambidexterity Our framework may also be extended to accommodate different forms of organizational-​level ambidexterity that make combined (simultaneous) ambidexterity possible for an individual manager. These include network ambidexterity (e.g., Kauppila,

96    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu 2010), where an exploration-​(or exploitation-​) oriented individual pairs up with an exploitation-​(or exploration-​) oriented individual. Furthermore, reciprocal ambidexterity (see Simsek, 2009 for a detailed discussion), which can be considered as a variant of cyclical ambidexterity, feeds from collaborative problem-​solving, information exchange, and communal decision-​making, and can be realized through sequential pursuit of exploitation and exploration across units, whereby the exploration outputs of one business unit become the exploitation inputs of another business unit, or vice-​versa, in a processual manner over time. Social networks enhance the synergy between the alternating streams of exploitation and exploration that occur across time and units, and thus reciprocal ambidexterity is based on functional relationships between the managers of different units (Simsek et al., 2009). This can be further aided by efficient coordination activities of the top management team. From our model’s standpoint, both network and reciprocal ambidexterity might help to further explain why some managers either change or retain their regulatory focuses, and related exploration and exploitation activities.

Discussion In this chapter, we have taken two steps toward unraveling the relationship between regulatory focus and temporal ambidexterity at the individual manager level. First, also using the existing insights in this literature, we have proposed a static relationship between managers’ regulatory focus and exploration–​exploitation. Next, through the use of a feedback loop, we have built a model explaining the dynamic interplay between regulatory focus, exploration–​exploitation, and temporal ambidexterity. And finally, we have suggested several potential extensions to the model, that would contribute to the further theorizing of micro-​foundations of managerial temporal ambidexterity. This chapter has several contributions and implications for the ambidexterity literature and practice, which are discussed in the following section.

Contributions and Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice First, this chapter takes a step toward a better understanding of the link between regulatory focus and temporal ambidexterity. Until now, ambidexterity research at the individual manager level of analysis has generally focused on contextual ambidexterity (e.g., Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009; Mom, Fourné, & Jansen, 2015), and temporal ambidexterity is mostly overlooked. We believe that the relative lack of development in this area is at least partially due to a lack of conceptual development. Moreover, there is a growing stream of research examining the relationship between regulatory

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    97 focus and exploration-​exploitation (Ahmadi et al., 2017; Kammerlander et al., 2015; Mom, Tuncdogan, & van den Bosch, 2019; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, Volberda 2015, Tuncdogan, Boon, Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda 2017). That is, regulatory focus is helpful in explaining exploration–​exploitation activities of a manager at a given time, which suggests that a framework about the change of regulatory focus components over time can be helpful in explaining temporal ambidexterity. However, so far, our knowledge regarding the relationship between regulatory focus and temporal ambidexterity is very limited. By means of this study, we address the issue of conceptual development about temporal focus at the individual manager level through building a dynamic model based on the psychological theory that has been helpful in explaining the key antecedents of temporal ambidexterity, namely, exploration and exploitation. Second, this model provides a simple foundation, which can easily be built upon in order to account for the effects of a larger range of phenomena, as previously discussed in our suggestions for potential model extensions. Unlike the emerging streams of literature on individual managers’ temporal ambidexterity and exploitation–​exploitation activities, the regulatory focus literature is much older and is established as a mature literature (see Johnson et al., 2015; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015). Moreover, so far, our limited knowledge regarding the psychological antecedents of individual managers’ exploration and exploitation has been mainly built on this theory (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2017; Kammerlander et al., 2015; Mom, Tuncdogan, & van den Bosch, 2019; Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015, 2017). Because we have a good understanding of the nomological network of regulatory focus (such as its antecedents—​e.g., Gorman et al., 2012; Lanaj, Chang & Johnson, 2012), building this simple on regulatory focus theory ensures that it is easily extendable. In other words, by building on regulatory focus literature, one can already find ideas about how the suggested temporal ambidexterity model works and could be extended with conceptually and empirically feasible mediators and moderators, for instance. Third, this model provides a psychological explanation as to why generally exploitation drives exploration out and not vice versa. More specifically, feedback regarding short-​term performance comes much more often than feedback regarding long-​term performance, and thus, one’s prevention focus in the organizational context is updated more regularly than one’s promotion focus, which can cause exploitation to drive exploration out. As a result, this model also implies that while staying ambidextrous is difficult in general, it is relatively easier to stay ambidextrous in careers where career progression has multiple frequent steps. More specifically, while long-​term performance feedback is less frequent than short-​term performance feedback in any organization, multiple steps make it more possible for people to observe their long-​term performance and the performance of others, compare the results to their chronic regulatory focus and re-​adjust their regulatory focus in the organizational context. For instance, in a highly formalized organization with many hierarchical layers, it is relatively easy to compare the career progression of oneself to similar others. However, in a horizontal organization where career progression happens every five to ten years, prevention focus would be updated

98    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu more often than promotion focus. In this manner, our model provides a psychological explanation for why the “success trap” of exploitation (Levinthal & March, 1993) occurs. Finally, in this model, we propose a micro-​foundational, psychological model that is able to explain a particular way temporal ambidexterity works in practice. While there might be other mechanisms that may explain ambidexterity more directly than this one, we can say that at least according to this model, usually ambidexterity is a consequence (i.e., an emergent phenomenon) and not a goal. In other words, although ambidexterity is a key antecedent of long-​term performance and survival, most people do not consciously and explicitly follow the goal of staying ambidextrous in the long term. This implication of the model also highlights the importance of teaching and learning ambidexterity. Essentially, the structure of this model implies that individuals who are exposed to the concept of ambidexterity and are consciously monitoring themselves with the aim of staying ambidextrous are more likely to succeed in the long term than those who simply depend on natural processes.

Limitations and Future Research While this study is conceptual and is not subject to empirical limitations, we still had to self-​impose certain restrictions in order to keep the chapter focused and the model manageable. To begin with, in this case, we followed the argument of Gupta, Smith, and Shalley (2006) and Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang (2009), who suggest that balance dimension of ambidexterity—​which can either be achieved by dividing resources equally at a given time or sequentially over time—​is more appropriate at lower levels of analysis. Also realizing that there is very limited research on “sequential” or “temporal” ambidexterity, we have focused on how an individual manager can become ambidextrous over a longer period of time. However, there also are studies suggesting that the combined dimension of ambidexterity is also possible at the individual manager level (e.g., Mom, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2009; Mom, Fourné, & Jansen, 2015). Therefore, while we have focused on one method of achieving the balance dimension of ambidexterity (temporal ambidexterity) in this chapter, future research should also give consideration to the methods of achieving the combined dimension of contextual ambidexterity or reciprocal ambidexterity on an organizational level (as shortly discussed in the extensions of the model). Furthermore, as with any conceptual work, the propositions of this chapter need to be tested through empirical research. Due to the multifaceted nature of the regulatory focus construct (e.g., chronic regulatory focus, situational regulatory focus, regulatory state) and the multipartite structure of our model (e.g., involves short-​term and long-​ term effects), properly testing the relationships in our model requires multiple studies using different methods. For instance, while cross-​sectional surveys may provide a lot of useful information for testing the static effects of chronic regulatory focus on managers’ exploration and exploitation activities, properly examining the short-​term influences on regulatory state, and of that on managers’ exploration and exploitation activities at

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    99 that point in time requires an experimental design. In contrast, testing the effects of regulatory focus on temporal ambidexterity definitely requires a longitudinal design. Moreover, future research on management education and ambidexterity in a university context (e.g., Ambos et al., 2008; Tahar, Niemeyer, & Boutellier, 2011) should examine the effect of teaching the concept of ambidexterity, and how management educators can help students internalize this concept. As mentioned previously, one implication of our framework is that while being ambidextrous benefits people by increasing their performance and chances of survival in the long-​term, they do not necessarily have the natural mechanisms directly focusing on the goal of attaining ambidexterity. This implies that ambidexterity is more achievable if the individual is explicitly educated about this concept, rather than purely relying on natural mechanisms. That is, students who are thoroughly exposed to the concept of ambidexterity during management education are likely to have a competitive advantage in terms of career progression. Future research should examine the positive effects of ambidexterity from a management education perspective, and seek pedagogical tools such as Inquiry-​Based Learning (e.g., Acar & Tuncdogan, 2018) to help students internalize this concept.

Conclusion Despite the strong interest in the micro-​foundations of ambidexterity at the individual manager level, research on the psychological mechanisms driving managers’ temporal ambidexterity has been very limited. In this chapter, using the regulatory focus theory—​ which has been the most popular psychological construct for explaining exploration and exploitation behaviors, we build a dynamic model of managers’ temporal ambidexterity. This model consists of a feedback loop that outlines how a manager’s regulatory focus in the organization context is updated based on performance outcomes. In conclusion, we build a simple model of temporal ambidexterity that future research can easily extend and build upon. We also provide illustrative examples of potential contextual and individual variables that can further improve the model and further enhance its implications for the literature.

References Acar, O. A., & Tuncdogan, A. (2018). Using the inquiry-​based learning approach to enhance student innovativeness: A conceptual model. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(4), 461–​475. Aguinis, H., & Molina-​Azorín, J. F. (2015). Using multilevel modeling and mixed methods to make theoretical progress in microfoundations for strategy research. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 353–​364. Ahmadi, S., Khanagha, S., Berchicci, L., & Jansen, J. J. (2017). Are managers motivated to explore in the face of a new technological change? The role of regulatory focus fit and complexity of decision-​making. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 209–​237.

100    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu Alexiev, A. S., Jansen, J. J., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2010). Top management team advice seeking and exploratory innovation: The moderating role of TMT heterogeneity. Journal of Management Studies, 47(7), 1343–​1364. Allen, A. M., Eilert, M., & Peloza, J. (2018). How deviations from performance norms impact charitable donations. Journal of Marketing Research, 55(2), 277–​290. Ambos, T. C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., & d’Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424–​1447. Arnold, M. J., Reynolds, K. E., Jones, M. A., Tugut, M., & Gabler, C. B. (2014). Regulatory focus intensity and evaluations of retail experiences. Psychology & Marketing, 31(11), 958–​975. Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-​analysis of 25 years of mood-​ creativity research: Hedonic tone activation or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 779–​806. Baum, J. A., Li, S. X., & Usher, J. M. (2000). Making the next move: How experiential and vicarious learning shape the locations of chains’ acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(4), 766–​801. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–​256. Boldero, J. M., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Regulatory focus and political decision making: When people favor reform over the status quo. Political Psychology, 32(3), 399–​418. Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T, R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 587–​610. Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 203–​220. Bromiley, P., & Washburn, M. (2011). Cost reduction vs innovative search in R&D. Journal of Strategy and Management, 4(3), 196–​214. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-​in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–​357. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–​796. Cialdini, R. B., Trost, M. R., & Newsom, J. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(2), 318–​328. Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-​making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–​132. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Das, T. K. (2014). Behavioral strategy: Emerging perspectives. IAP. Deaux, K., & Snyder, M. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of personality and social psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Desai, V. M. (2016). The behavioral theory of the (governed) firm: Corporate board influences on organizations’ responses to performance shortfalls. Academy of Management Journal, 59(3), 860–​879.

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    101 Dixon, S. E., Meyer, K. E., & Day, M. (2007). Exploitation and exploration, learning, and the development of organizational capabilities: A cross-​case analysis of the Russian oil industry. Human Relations, 60(12), 1493–​1523. Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1(2), 167–​188. Durcikova, A., Fadel, K. J., Butler, B. S., & Galletta, D. F. (2011). Knowledge exploration and exploitation: The impacts of psychological climate and knowledge management system access. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 855–​866. Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–​1273. Fang, C., Lee, J., & Schilling, M. A. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organization Science, 21(4), 625–​642. Ferraris, A., Degbey, W. Y., Singh, S. K., Bresciani, S., Castellano, S., Fiano, F., & Couturier, J. (2022). Microfoundations of strategic agility in emerging markets: Empirical evidence of Italian MNEs in India. Journal of World Business, 57(2), 101272. Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1996). Strategic leadership: Top executives and their effects on organizations. Eagan, MN: West Publishing Company. Foss, N. J. (2011). Invited editorial: Why micro-​foundations for resource-​based theory are needed and what they may look like. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1413–​1428. Förster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–​636. Gaim, M., & Wåhlin, N. (2016). In search of a creative space: A conceptual framework of synthesizing paradoxical tensions. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 32(1), 33–​44. Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group development. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), 9–​41. Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 10–​36. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–​226. Gino, F., & Margolis, J. D. (2011). Bringing ethics into focus: How regulatory focus and risk preferences influence unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(2), 145–​156. Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., & Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-​analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-​related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–​172. Good, D., & Michel, E. J. (2013). Individual ambidexterity: Exploring and exploiting in dynamic contexts. The Journal of Psychology, 147(4), 435–​453. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–​706. Hamstra, M. R., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Veldstra, J. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(2), 134–​137. Hamstra, M. R., Sassenberg, K., Van Yperen, N. W., & Wisse, B. (2014). Followers feel valued—​ When leaders’ regulatory focus makes leaders exhibit behavior that fits followers’ regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 34–​40.

102    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–​494. Hekman, D. R., Van Knippenberg, D., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). Channeling identification: How perceived regulatory focus moderates the influence of organizational and professional identification on professional employees’ diagnosis and treatment behaviors. Human Relations, 69(3), 753–​780. Helfat, C. E. (1994). Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40(12), 1720–​1747. Helfat, C. E., & Raubitschek, R. S. (2000). Product sequencing: Co-​evolution of knowledge, capabilities, and products. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–​11), 961–​979. Heyden, M. L., Van Doorn, S., Reimer, M., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2013). Perceived environmental dynamism, relative competitive performance, and top management team heterogeneity: Examining correlates of upper echelons’ advice-​seeking. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1327–​1356. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–​46. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–​23. Hill, P. L., Turiano, N. A., Mroczek, D. K., & Burrow, A. L. (2016). The value of a purposeful life: Sense of purpose predicts greater income and net worth. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 38–​42. Hmieleski, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (2008). Regulatory focus and new venture performance: A study of entrepreneurial opportunity exploitation under conditions of risk versus uncertainty. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(4), 285–​299. Hodgkinson, I. R., Hughes, P., & Leite, H. (2023). The cognitive micro‐foundations, and socio‐ psychological mechanisms, of organizational decision‐making in public management. British Journal of Management, 34(2), 787–​804. Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70–​81. Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–​274. Jafari-​Sadeghi, V., Mahdiraji, H. A., Alam, G. M., & Mazzoleni, A. (2023). Entrepreneurs as strategic transformation managers: Exploring micro-​foundations of digital transformation in small and medium internationalisers. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113287. Jain, S. P., Agrawal, N., & Maheswaran, D. (2006). When more may be less: The effects of regulatory focus on responses to different comparative frames. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 91–​98. Jansen, J. J., Kostopoulos, K. C., Mihalache, O. R., & Papalexandris, A. (2016). A socio-​ psychological perspective on team ambidexterity: The contingency role of supportive leadership behaviours. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 939–​965. Jansen, J. J., van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation exploitative innovation and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661–​1674.

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    103 Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67. Johnson, P. D., Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., Hill, A. D., & Baron, R. A. (2015). A review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management, 41, 1501–​1529. Kammerlander, N., Burger, D., Fust, A., & Fueglistaller, U. (2015). Exploration and exploitation in established small and medium-​sized enterprises: The effect of CEOs’ regulatory focus. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 582–​602. Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283–​312. Kark, R., & Katz-​Navon, T., & Delegach, M. (2015). The dual effects of leading for safety: The mediating role of employee regulatory focus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1332. Kark, R., & Van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead motivation to follow: The role of the self-​ regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–​528. Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2006). Regulatory fit and cognitive performance: The interactive effect of chronic and situationally induced self‐regulatory mechanisms on test performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 393–​405. Kisfalvi, V., Sergi, V., & Langley, A. (2016). Managing and mobilizing microdynamics to achieve behavioral integration in top management teams. Long Range Planning, 49, 427–​446. Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety task conflict and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 36, 385–​415. Knight, E., & Cuganesan, S. (2019). Enabling organizational ambidexterity: Valuation practices and the senior-​leadership team. Human Relations, 72, 253–​282. Knight, E., & Paroutis, S. (2017). Becoming salient: The TMT leader’s role in shaping the interpretive context of paradoxical tensions. Organization Studies, 38, 403–​432. Knudsen, T., & Levinthal, D. A. (2007). Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organization Science, 18, 39–​54. Lanaj, K., Chang, C. H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-​related outcomes: a review and meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–​155. Leary, M. R., & Allen, A. B. (2011). Self-​presentational persona: Simultaneous management of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1033. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–​41. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper Row. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50, 127–​149. Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41, 3–​13. Levinthal, D. A. (2011). A behavioral approach to strategy—​what’s the alternative? Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1517–​1523. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–​112. Liberman, N., Idson, L. C., Camacho, C. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135. Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854.

104    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu Magendans, J., Gutteling, J. M., & Zebel, S. (2017). Psychological determinants of financial buffer saving: The influence of financial risk tolerance and regulatory focus. Journal of Risk Research, 20, 1076–​1093. Manczak, E. M., Zapata-​Gietl, C., & McAdams, D. P. (2014). Regulatory focus in the life story: Prevention and promotion as expressed in three layers of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 169. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–​87. Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 313–​323. Martin, A., Keller, A., & Fortwengel, J. (2019). Introducing conflict as the microfoundation of organizational ambidexterity. Strategic Organization, 17(1), 38–​61. McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: Real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Academy of Management Review, 24, 13–​30. McMullen, J. S., Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2009). Managerial (in) attention to competitive threats. Journal of Management Studies, 46(2), 157–​181. Mom, T., Tuncdogan, A., & van den Bosch, F. (2019). Regulatory focus as a mediator of environmental dynamism and decentralization on managers’ exploration and exploitation activities. In A. Tuncdogan, A. Lindgreen, H. Volberda, & F. van den Bosch (Eds.), Strategic renewal: Core concepts, antecedents, and micro foundations (pp. 21–​51). London, UK: Routledge. Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 812–​828. Mom, T. J., Fourné, S. P., & Jansen, J. J. (2015). Managers’ work experience ambidexterity and performance: The contingency role of the work context. Human Resource Management, 54, 133–​153. Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 134–​140. Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. (2002). Being efficiently fickle: A dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organization Science, 13, 547–​566. Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563–​576. Posen, H., Keil, T., Kim, S., & Meissner, F. (2018). Renewing research on problemistic search-​a review and research agenda. Academy of Management Annals, 12, 208–​251. Powell, T. C. (2014). Strategic management and the person. Strategic Organization, 12(3), 200–​207. Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D., & Fox, C. R. (2011). Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 1369–​1386. Probst, G., Raisch, S., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Ambidextrous leadership: Emerging challenges for business and HR leaders. Organizational Dynamics, 40, 326–​334. Puranam, P., Singh, H., & Zollo, M. (2006). Organizing for innovation: Managing the coordination-​autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 263–​280. Ritala, P., Heiman, B., & Hurmelinna-​Laukkanen, P. (2016). The need for speed—​unfamiliar problems capability rigidity and ad hoc processes in organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25, 757–​777.

Conceptual Model of the Dynamic Relationship    105 Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–​221. Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763. Sheehan, M., Garavan, T. N., & Morley, M. J. (2023). The microfoundations of dynamic capabilities for incremental and radical innovation in knowledge‐intensive businesses. British Journal of Management, 34(1), 220–​240. Schijven, M., & Hitt, M. A. (2012). The vicarious wisdom of crowds: Toward a behavioral perspective on investor reactions to acquisition announcements. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1247–​1268. Schmitt, A., Barker, V. L., Raisch, S., & Whetten, D. (2016). Strategic renewal in times of environmental scarcity. Long Range Planning, 49, 361–​376. Schuh, S. C., Van Quaquebeke, N., Göritz, A. S., Xin, K. R., De Cremer, D., & Van Dick, R. (2016). Mixed feelings, mixed blessing? How ambivalence in organizational identification relates to employees’ regulatory focus and citizenship behaviors. Human Relations, 69(12), 2224–​2249. Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285. Sibony, O., Lovallo, D., & Powell, T. C. (2017). Behavioral strategy and the strategic decision architecture of the firm. California Management Review, 59, 5–​21. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized decentralized and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14, 650–​669. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–​624. Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–​894. Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., & Nordstokke, D. W. (2014). The link between neuroticism and perfectionistic concerns: The mediating effect of trait emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 61, 97–​100. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-​monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 526. Stam, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Focusing on followers: The role of regulatory focus and possible selves in visionary leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 457–​468. Stokes, P., Moore, N., Moss, D., Mathews, M., Smith, S. M., & Liu, Y. (2015). The micro‐dynamics of intraorganizational and individual behavior and their role in organizational ambidexterity boundaries. Human Resource Management, 54, S64–​S86. Sugimori, E., Mitchell, K. J., Raye, C. L., Greene, E. J., & Johnson, M. K. (2014). Brain mechanisms underlying reality monitoring for heard and imagined words. Psychological Science, 25, 403–​413. Tahar, S., Niemeyer, C., & Boutellier, R. (2011). Transferral of business management concepts to universities as ambidextrous organisations. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 289–​308.

106    A. Tuncdogan, P. Ritala, and P. Karhu Tuncdogan, A., Acar, O. A., & Stam, D. (2017). Individual differences as antecedents of leader behavior: Towards an understanding of multi-​ level outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 28, 40–​64. Tuncdogan, A., Boon, A., Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2017). Management teams’ regulatory foci and organizational units’ exploratory innovation: The mediating role of coordination mechanisms. Long Range Planning, 50, 621–​635. Tuncdogan, A., & Dogan, I. C. (2020). Managers’ regulatory focus, temporal focus and exploration–​exploitation activities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(1), 13–​27. Tuncdogan, A., Lindgreen, A., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2019a). Guest editorial: Psychological micro-​foundations of business-​to-​business decision making. Industrial Marketing Management, 83, 128–​133. Tuncdogan, A., Lindgreen, A., Volberda, H. W., & van den Bosch, F. (Eds.). (2019b). Strategic renewal: Core concepts, antecedents, and micro foundations. London: Routledge. Tuncdogan, A., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2015). Regulatory focus as a psychological micro-​foundation of leaders’ exploration and exploitation activities. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 838–​850. Tuncdogan, A., & Volberda, H. W. (2020). The effects of perceived corporate brand personality on individuals’ exploration and exploitation orientations: the moderating role of self‐brand connection. R&D Management, 50, 188–​197. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–​30. van Noort, G., Kerkhof, P., & Fennis, B. M. (2007). Online versus conventional shopping: Consumers’ risk perception and regulatory focus. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 731–​733. Wallace, J. C., Johnson, P. D., & Frazier, M. L. (2009). An examination of the factorial construct and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 805–​831. Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 28–​38. Wang, P., Van De Vrande, V., & Jansen, J. J. (2017). Balancing exploration and exploitation in inventions: Quality of inventions and team composition. Research Policy, 46, 1836–​1850. Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control mood disturbance and social difficulty during cross-​cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 175–​194. Weber, L., & Mayer, K. J. (2011). Designing effective contracts: Exploring the influence of framing and expectations. Academy of Management Review, 36, 53–​75. Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. (2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730–​743. Wu, C., McMullen, J. S., Neubert, M. J., & Yi, X. (2008). The influence of leader regulatory focus on employee creativity. Journal of Business Venturing, 23, 587–​602. Zhang, S., Cornwell, J. F., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). Repeating the past: Prevention focus motivates repetition even for unethical decisions. Psychological Science, 25, 179–​187. Zhou, R., & Pham, M. T. (2004). Promotion and prevention across mental accounts: When financial products dictate consumers & investment goals. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 125–​135.

chapter 8

In di vidual Di ffe re nc e s in So cial C om pa ri s on i n Organiz at i ons Abraham P. Buunk

Social comparison refers to relating one’s own characteristics to those of other similar individuals, and may be especially manifest in work situations, as individuals are usually surrounded by other employees. In this chapter, I review the literature on individual differences in social comparison in organizations. First, I discuss individual differences in the tendency to compare upward (with others better off) and downward (with others worse-​off), and how such comparisons may evoke positive and negative feelings. Second, I describe how such effects depend on whether individuals identify or contrast themselves with others, and how this is influenced by leadership style and the social climate in an organization. Next I deal at length with individual differences in social comparison orientation (SCO), i.e., the extent to which, and the frequency with which, people compare themselves in general with others, and show that SCO affects indeed the frequency with which employees compare themselves with other employees, whether they contrast or identify themselves with their colleagues, and how SCO moderates the effects of social comparison on burnout, feelings of relative deprivation, perceptions of fairness, and jealousy. Finally, I discuss the practical implications of research on social comparison in organizations.

Social Comparison Social comparison refers to relating one’s own characteristics to those of other similar individuals (Buunk & Gibbons, 1997; Wood, 1989). Social comparisons may provide individuals with information that they can use to evaluate, enhance, or improve themselves. Scholars have long recognized the importance of social comparison for

108   A.P. Buunk human adaptation and survival. As Suls and Wheeler (2000) have noted, theorizing and research on social comparison can be traced to some of the classic contributions to Western philosophy and to pivotal work in social psychology and sociology, including work on the self, adaptation level, reference groups, and social influence. Nevertheless, it was not until Festinger’s (1954) classic paper that the term “social comparison” was introduced. According to Festinger, “There exists, in the human organism, a drive to evaluate his opinions and abilities” (Festinger, 1954: 11). As Gilbert, Price, & Allan (1995) noted, social comparison is phylogenetically very old, biologically very powerful, and recognizable in many species. According to Beach and Tesser (2000), as Homo sapiens began to emerge as a distinct species, there was a shift toward more specialization within groups, and this required the ability to assess the domains in which one could specialize, in order to enhance one’s status and reproductive opportunities. Social comparison may facilitate such assessment (see Buunk & Mussweiler, 2001). The work sphere is a major area of life in which people may attain prestige, recognition, and self-​esteem, and these features are to an important extent dependent on how one does in comparison with others. Social-​comparison processes may therefore especially be manifest in work situations, and may often be difficult to avoid as individuals are usually surrounded by other employees (cf. Goodman & Haisley, 2007). Already in his equity theory, Adams (1965) emphasized the importance of social comparisons for assessing how fairly one is treated. In general, as described by Greenberg, Ashton-​James, & Ashkanasy (2007), social-​comparison processes are relevant for understanding key areas of organizational inquiry, including organizational justice, performance appraisal, affective behavior, and stress in the workplace. Employees may compare, for example, their performance, salary, room size, secondary benefits, or career prospects with that of others. One may view that a colleague is doing his or her work better than oneself, that a colleague is neglecting his or her work, that a colleague is promoted to a higher position that one feels he or she deserves, or that a colleague has a higher or much lower salary than oneself. Some people may just ignore that they are better or worse off than their coworkers, while others may be rather preoccupied with how they are doing in comparison with their coworkers (e.g., Buunk & Gibbons, 2006; Buunk, in press). Although in the twenty-​first century there has been a growing interest of researchers in economy on the effects of social comparison (e.g., Hyll, 2018; Ridge, Hill, & Aime, 2017), many of these studies did not assess directly the social comparisons made by employees, but rather have made analyses on the group or organizational level. On the individual level, the effects of social comparisons with one’s colleagues on mental health should not be underestimated. Various studies in organizational contexts have documented the negative effects of a subjective low status as a result of social comparison for health and well-​being. For example, in a prospective study in two metal factories in The Netherlands, Geurts, Buunk, and Schaufeli (1994) found that a low subjective status in terms of being worse off than others in domains, such as autonomy and promotion prospects, led to a relatively high number of sick leaves. Especially a loss of status may affect one’s mental health

Social Comparison in Organizations    109 negatively, and, for example, lead to burnout (see Gilbert, 2006 for a review). A loss of status becomes particularly problematic when no escape is felt to be possible. Such “blocked” escape may induce a sense of defeat, i.e., may bring individuals in a “giving up” state of mind, characterized by a negative self-​definition (“I am a loser”) and feelings of depression and exhaustion (e.g., Buunk & Brenninkmeijer, 2001; Gilbert and Miles, 2000; Gilbert & Allan, 1998). Schaufeli and Buunk (2003) found indeed that burned-​out individuals tend to feel helpless, hopeless, and powerless, and experience feelings of insufficiency, incompetence, and poor job-​related self-​ esteem—​all experiences that suggest a subjectively low status and a sense of defeat. Likewise, in a study among Spanish teachers, Buunk, Peiro, Rodriguez, and Bravo (2007) found that a low status, a loss of status, and a sense of defeat were independent predictors of burnout. The feeling of being defeated predicted burnout among men, but not among women, in the following year.

Direction of Social Comparison From the onset of social-​comparison research, the preferred direction of comparison when seeking out comparison information has been a central question. That is, under what conditions do people compare themselves with others doing better (upward comparisons), or with others doing worse (downward comparisons)? In his original paper, Festinger (1954) made a strong case for the motive of self-​evaluation, that is, individuals want to find out how well they are doing by comparing themselves with others, particularly with others doing somewhat better than themselves. In organizations, individuals will be concerned with issues like “do I earn enough?,” “how well I am performing?,” or “how well I am evaluated by my supervisor?” According to classic social-​comparison theory, employees will overall engage more in upward than in downward comparison, and will tend to compare for example their salary with that of colleagues doing the same type of work who are earning more, and will usually compare their performance with colleagues doing the same type of work who are performing better. Indeed, for example Buunk, Zurriaga, and Peiró (2001) found in a study among Spanish nurses that upward comparisons (with others who are performing better than you oneself) were more frequent than downward comparisons (with others who are performing worse than oneself). It now has become clear that individuals in organizations may also compare their contribution to the organization and their salary even with CEOs, and demand more rewards for their own efforts, especially now salaries have become public in many countries. Seeing someone who is better off may deflate the ego and produce a negative effect, as was also illustrated by the earlier mentioned studies on the negative effects of a subjective low status and loss of status. On the other hand, perceiving oneself as better off may boost one’s self-​esteem, reduce anxiety, and generate the positive effect essential for self-​enhancement.

110   A.P. Buunk

Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Social Comparison: Identification versus Contrast Although overall upward and downward comparisons may evoke different affect, the effects of social-​comparison information depend also on whether individuals identify or contrast themselves with the comparison targets (e.g., Buunk & Ybema, 1997). In the case of identification, employees tend to focus on the actual or potential similarity between themselves and the comparison target, try to recognize features of themselves in the other, and may regard the other’s position as similar or attainable for themselves. When employees contrast themselves with a colleague, they tend to regard the other’s position as a standard against which they can evaluate themselves. As a consequence, individuals differ in the extent to which they follow four strategies: upward identification, upward contrast, downward identification, and downward contrast. In general, upward identification with a successful colleague may enhance one’s self-​ image and evoke positive feelings such as hope and admiration, whereas downward identification with an unsuccessful colleague may lower one’s self-​image, and may produce feelings of worry and fear. For example, Foley, Ngo, and Loi (2016) showed that although downward social comparison positively impacted job satisfaction, upward social comparison positively affected organizational commitment. In a similar vein, in two samples of customs and police officers, Michinov (2005) found that as officers compared themselves more often with better-​off employees, they reported a higher level of job satisfaction as well as fewer health complaints and feelings of emotional exhaustion. Conversely, the more frequently officers compared themselves with less-​fortunate employees, the more dissatisfied they were and the more health problems and emotional exhaustion they reported. In line with this, in a study from South Korea, Shin and Sohn (2015) found that downward comparisons, in particular, were associated with a low level of job satisfaction. In general, there is evidence that both upward and downward comparisons may undermine trust in organizations (Dunn, Ruedy, & Schweitzer, 2012). In general, several studies suggest that the positive effect evoked by upward comparisons (i.e., feeling good when another person is performing well) and the negative effect evoked by downward comparisons (i.e., feeling bad when another person is performing poorly)—​both examples of identification—​are more prevalent than responses indicating contrast, that is, the negative effect evoked by upward comparisons (i.e., feeling bad when another person is performing well) and the positive effect evoked by downward comparisons (i.e., feeling good when another person is performing poorly) (see Buunk, Zurriaga, & Peiró, 2010; Carmona et al., 2006).

Social Comparison in Organizations    111

Individual Differences in Social Comparison Orientation Although individuals may report their extent of engagement in social comparisons with colleagues, and their degree of identification and contrast in such comparisons, such self-​reports may be subject to several limitations. It has been observed by a number of researchers that many individuals are reluctant to admit that they do engage in social comparison (Brickman & Bulman, 1977; Helgeson & Taylor, 1993; Hemphill & Lehman, 1991; Schoeneman, 1981). The tendency not to acknowledge one’s own social comparison activities may have several reasons. First, in organizations, as in many other contexts, social comparisons are often seen as unwanted, especially when they result in socially undesirable emotions, such as envy and Schadenfreude (Buckley, 2014). Evidence for the taboo on social comparisons comes from a study by Hoorens et al. (2012), who found that people who make self-​superiority claims in which they directly compare themselves with others are disliked more than people who make self-​superiority claims without direct comparisons. Second, individuals tend to feel that social comparisons are relatively unimportant for their self-​evaluation. For example, in a series of studies, Wilson and Ross (2000) analyzed open-​ended self-​descriptions and found that social comparisons were much less frequently used to characterize oneself than were comparisons with one’s own self in the past (i.e., temporal comparisons), suggesting that in organizations individuals may also look at how they did in the past when evaluating their performance rather compare their performance with that of their colleagues. Third, it is also highly likely that individuals do not acknowledge all of their own social comparison activities because they are unaware of them. Social comparisons do indeed often occur outside of awareness. The lack of awareness may, at least partially, be attributed to the fact that social comparisons are often made automatically, spontaneously, and literally, in a blink of an eye (see also Massar & Buunk, 2009; Want, 2009). In general, as Gilbert, Giesler, and Morris (1995) suggested, the process of social comparison may be spontaneous, effortless, unintentional, and relatively automatic. As such, it may not always be salient or memorable. Nevertheless, it has become increasingly evident that some individuals do indeed seldom engage in social comparison inside and outside organizations. In fact, for decades it has been suggested that people may differ in their disposition to compare themselves with others. Diener and Fujita (1997) suggested, “making any comparisons at all may often be a function of one’s personality” (p. 349). Earlier, Hemphill and Lehman (1991) had mentioned “the need for researchers to include measures of social comparison that acknowledge the fact that people may not wish to compare with others to an equal extent” (p. 390). Thus, when research participants explain their difficulties with social comparison questionnaires and claim that they seldom compare themselves with others, this may mean that they truly do lack an interest in social comparison information. From this perspective, Gibbons and Buunk (1999) argued that the extent to which,

112   A.P. Buunk and the frequency with which, people compare themselves with others does vary considerably from one individual to the next. They developed a scale assessing individual differences in what was labeled social comparison orientation (SCO). This measure of 11 items, answered on 5-​point scales, referred to as the Iowa-​Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure (INCOM), explicitly assesses individual differences in the inclination to compare one’s accomplishments, one’s situation, and one’s experiences with those of others. Evidence for the external validity of the scale comes from, among other things, a laboratory experiment showing that individuals high in SCO are more interested in the scores of others after having learned their own score (Gibbons & Buunk, 1999), and also from research among cancer patients showing that patients high in SCO, when given the opportunity, select more information about other patients and respond more strongly to such information (Van der Zee et al., 1998). Since the scale was published, it has been translated into more than 20 different languages. In 2005, Buunk, Belmonte, Peiró, Zurriaga, and Gibbons (Buunk et al., 2005a) reported the results of the psychometric evaluation of the INCOM-​E, the Spanish language version of the INCOM, and found that it was psychometrically very similar to the Dutch and English versions. Moreover, the factor structure appeared to be quite similar to that of the English and Dutch versions, and also showed an ability comparison factor and an opinion comparison factor. In 2014, Schneider and Schupp evaluated the psychometric properties of the INCOM in the German language, also supporting the existence of these two factors. However, virtually all studies with the INCOM have used the total scale. Given the normal distribution of the scores on the INCOM, in organizations there may be as many low comparers as high compares. As social comparisons in organizations may often be perceived as socially undesirable, there was reason to expect a negative relation between the INCOM and measures of social desirability. However, Gibbons and Buunk (1999) showed that the correlations with the Marlowe-​Crowne scale and the Eysenck lie scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) were low to nonsignificant in The Netherlands, the United States and Spain. Thus, concerns that responses on the INCOM might be strongly influenced by social desirability motives appear unfounded, a conclusion that was later confirmed by Scheider and Schupp (2014) in their study with the German version of the INCOM. Given that social comparison inevitably involves the self, it is not surprising that the closest correlates of SCO are private and public self-​consciousness (Fenigstein, Scheier, & Buss, 1975). More specifically, Buunk et al. (2005b), Gibbons and Buunk (1999), Lee (2014), and Neff and Vonk (2009) found correlations higher than.40 between SCO and both public and private self-​consciousness. These findings suggest that those high in SCO have a high chronic activation of the self and, more than others, are concerned about conforming to and fulfilling social and personal expectations (see Scheier & Carver, 1983, for a review of the literature on trait self-​consciousness). In addition to the self, the other critical ingredient of social comparison, especially within organizations, is of course, another individual or group. In this vein, one of the strongest predictors of SCO, is interpersonal orientation, that is, an orientation toward

Social Comparison in Organizations    113 others reflected in the motivation to develop and maintain long-​term relationships and to participate in positive social interactions (Buunk et al., 2005b; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). In the same vein, Gibbons and Buunk found SCO to be related to communal orientation, which reflects empathy as well as a sensitivity to needs of others and a willingness to help them. A final characteristic of individuals high in SCO is that they often report relatively high levels of neuroticism. For instance, Buunk et al. (2005b) found a rather high correlation between SCO and neuroticism. Moreover, Gibbons and Buunk (1999) found that the only substantial and consistent link between SCO and any of the Big Five personality dimensions was with neuroticism. In addition, the communality analyses reported by Gibbons and Buunk (1999) revealed that with self-​esteem and depression included, only neuroticism had a unique relation with SCO (explaining 4.5% of the variance by itself), perhaps due to its general nature. Taken together, the findings to date suggest that the “typical” comparer is someone who is quite aware of him-​or herself, has a strong concern with their own motives and feelings, as apparent from substantial correlations of SCO with public and private self-​ consciousness, has a relatively low intellectual autonomy, and displays a high level of neuroticism (two of the Big Five dimensions).

The Role of SCO in Affecting and Moderating Social Comparisons in Organizations There is considerable, though not always consistent, evidence that the effects of social comparison in organizations depend in part on SCO. Frequency of comparison affecting the development of burnout. A clear example of the role of SCO in organizations is a study among nurses by Buunk, Zurriaga, and Peiró (2010), who found that the frequency of comparisons was a predictor of feelings of burnout nine to ten months later, primarily among individuals with a high SCO. Thus, typical high comparers tended to develop more burnout over time when they often engaged in social comparisons with their colleagues. Identification and contrast in response to upward and downward comparisons. SCO also affects how employees respond to an upward or downward comparisons with a colleague. In an experimental study by Buunk et al. (2001) among sociotherapists, i.e., mental health workers in a forensic psychiatric clinic, participants were confronted with a bogus interview with an upward versus a downward comparison target. The upward target was presented as involved in his or her work, enjoyed investing energy in his or her work, mastered the required behavioral therapeutical skills quite well, and was appreciated by his or her colleagues as well as by his or her supervisor for implementing behavioral therapeutical procedures very well. The downward target was presented as

114   A.P. Buunk someone who felt it was better not to be too involved in his or her work, did not feel and preferred to invest his or her energy in things outside work, and experienced little appreciation from his or her colleagues, and often being criticized by the supervisor for not implementing the behavioral therapeutical procedures well. In this study, upward comparison generated more positive and less negative affect than did downward comparison. Increasing levels of burnout were accompanied by less positive affect in response to the upward comparison target, and more negative affect in response to the downward comparison target. However, this latter effect occurred only among individuals high in SCO. Moreover, the higher the level of burnout, the higher the identification with the downward target, and the lower the identification with the upward target. However, this last effect did occur only among those low in SCO. Those high in SCO kept identifying with the upward target, even when they were high in burnout. In a study with a similar paradigm among 72 nurses by Buunk, Van der Zee, and Van Yperen (2001), a measure of neuroticism was also included, as SCO has been found to correlate substantially with neuroticism. As in the study mentioned in the previous paragraph, the results showed that, independent of their level of neuroticism, the higher individuals were in SCO, the more negative affect they showed following confrontation with the downward comparison target Whereas, unlike what was found in the previous study, SCO did not affect identification with the target, but independent of their SCO, the higher individuals were in neuroticism, the less they identified with the upward comparison target, the more they identified with the downward comparison target. Thus, although neuroticism and SCO are correlated, these variables seem to have independent and distinct effects upon the responses to social comparison information. In a non-​experimental study, among 216 physicians from various health centers in the Community of Valencia in Spain, Buunk et al. (2005b) found that individuals interpret social comparisons at work in a positive way when they perceive the social climate as cooperative and in a negative way when they are high in SCO. Thus, those high in SCO seem under various conditions to focus on the negative implications of social comparisons for themselves, which can make working in groups a painful experience. Satisfaction with one´s team. In line with the findings just described, there is more direct evidence that working in teams may under certain conditions, affect those high in SCO negatively. In this vein, a study among 653 undergraduate business students, Buunk, Nauta, and Molleman (2004) provided quite strong evidence for the negative effects of social comparison upon satisfaction with one´s team among those high in SCO. This study examined the impact of SCO and affiliation orientation (i.e., the preference for doing things together and in groups versus a preference for doing things alone on satisfaction with one’s educational group). A multilevel analysis showed that individual-​level variance in group satisfaction was explained by an interaction between affiliation orientation and SCO: high levels of affiliation orientation were associated with high group satisfaction of individual group members only among those low in SCO. Among those high in SCO, a high level of affiliation orientation was actually negatively

Social Comparison in Organizations    115 associated, though not very strongly, with group satisfaction. These effects held up when simultaneously controlling for all “Big Five” personality dimensions. Social comparison of one´s performance affecting relative deprivation. A longitudinal study of nurses by Buunk et al. (2003) examined the effects of social comparison of one’s performance (how competently and adequately one felt one was doing one’s work) with that of one’s colleagues and perceived relative deprivation at work over a period of one year. The concept of relative deprivation in this study was based upon the preconditions of relative deprivation formulated by Crosby (1984, 1976) and Folger (1987), and included a negative evaluation of one´s career accomplishments on the basis of criteria such as perceived unfair treatment, the perception that things might easily have been different, social comparisons, one´s expectations, what one felt one deserved, and unfavorable circumstances beyond one´s control. Relative deprivation assessed with a scale encompassing such elements had increased particularly among those high in SCO, who a year earlier had (a) more frequently engaged in upward comparisons; (b) more frequently derived positive as well as negative feelings from such comparisons; and (c) more frequently derived negative feelings from downward comparisons. The finding—​that deriving a positive as well as a negative effect from upward comparisons, accompanied by an increase in relative deprivation, especially among those high in SCO—​suggests that while such individuals may admire someone who is performing better than themselves, such admiration may, at the same time, imply that one realizes that they are doing worse, which may eventually contribute to a sense of relative deprivation. Nevertheless, this study showed that individuals high in SCO tend to make downward comparisons, and this has been confirmed by other studies. Perceptions of fairness. Related to the previous issue, individuals high in SCO have also been found to be more likely than those low in SCO to develop feelings of unfairness in response to work-​related social comparisons. For instance, Thau, Aquino, and Wittek (2007) found that the negative relationship between employee perceptions of justice and supervisory ratings of antisocial behaviors at work was stronger for workers who were high in SCO. According to Thau, Aquino, & Wittek (2007), individuals high in SCO respond relatively strongly to perceptions of injustice because of their chronic uncertainty about themselves. In organizations, a high SCO is, in general, associated with envy and perceived injustice (e.g., De la Sablonnière et al., 2012). Envy and resentment may in particular occur in individuals who perceive that another employee has privileged access to resources not directly based on his or her qualifications, for example because of personal relationships with those in power in the organization. Jealousy. Jealousy is generated by a threat to, or an actual loss of, a valued relationship with another person, due to an actual or imagined rival for the other person’s attention (Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002). Jealousy in work contexts may have adverse consequences for employee performance and well-​being. For instance, jealousy may lead to work place gossip (Wert & Salovey, 2004), which often takes a malicious form when individuals derogate the person that evokes the feelings of jealousy, which

116   A.P. Buunk may create a hostile work environment (e.g., Grosser, Lopez-​Kidwell, Labianca, & Ellwardt, 2012). As jealousy is in general evoked through a process of social comparison, in which jealous individuals feel that the characteristics of the rival surpass their own characteristics (e.g., Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002), one would expect jealousy to be higher among those high in SCO. In a number of studies, my colleagues and I used a scenario in which participants were asked to imagine that they had a satisfying and close relationship with one’s supervisor, for whom one was the main confident. However, a new employee developed a close relationship with the same supervisor, became his or her main confident, and since then, at meetings the supervisor was more interested in the opinions of the new employee than in one´s opinions. A series of characteristics were presented, and participants were asked how jealous they would be if the rival possessed this characteristic. On the basis of extensive previous research (Buunk et al., 2011) scales for four types of rival characteristics were included: social-​communal characteristics (e.g., being a good listener, being attentive), social dominance (e.g., has more authority, is more popular), physical attractiveness (e.g., is more slender, has a better figure), and physical dominance (e.g., is more muscular, is taller). In a study with this paradigm among 188 participants in Argentina, Buunk, aan ’t Goor, and Castro-​Solano (2010), the rival was of the same sex, but the supervisor was of either the same or the opposite sex. In general, regardless of the sex of the supervisor, jealousy in response to all rival characteristics was higher, the higher one was in SCO. In a similar study in Spain among 426 male and female employees the rival was also of the same sex, but the supervisor was for all participants of the opposite sex. Again, as individuals were higher in SCO, they experienced more jealousy, regardless of the rival’s characteristics. Inspiration by a role model. Although in some cases, SCO may have negative implications, there is evidence that social comparisons may also have positive effects among those high in SCO in work-​related contexts Buunk, Peiró, and Griffioen (2007) exposed students in their final year of study to a written scenario containing a fictitious interview with a new graduate who was either successful or unsuccessful in the job market. Exposure to the successful target led to a higher degree of inspiration, identification, and proactive career behavior than did exposure to the unsuccessful target, especially among those students high in SCO. The fact that in this study high SCO had positive implication rather than negative ones may in part be attributed to the specific type of comparison (i.e., the confrontation with concrete, vivid targets). In line with earlier mentioned findings, it is our contention that in this case those high in SCO tend in general to show more likely assimilation to, and identification with, the comparison target. In contrast, when simply asked how one feels in response to comparison with others without providing descriptions of such others, more likely contrast effects seem to be evoked among those high in SCO.

Social Comparison in Organizations    117

Conclusion and Implications for Practice To conclude, social comparisons seem to be quite prevalent in organizations, but there are considerable individual differences in the occurrence and interpretation of such comparisons, which are in part the result of organizational factors such as the social climate and the style of leadership, but to an important extent on the social comparison orientation (SCO), the dispositional tendency to compare oneself with others. Social comparisons may evoke positive and negative emotions, depending on the direction (upward versus downward) and the interpretation of the comparison (identification versus contrast) as well as on the social climate in the organization, but these effects tend to be moderated by SCO. Burnout may be affected by interpreting social comparisons negatively, but this seems to occur especially among those high in SCO. Jealousy constitutes a specific emotion evoked by social comparisons, that may even be evoked by rivals high on dimensions not directly relevant for job performance, like physical attractiveness, and that may have negative effects for the organization because these may result in not hiring or promoting the most competent colleague for a particular job. Again, jealousy tends to be more prevalent among those high in SCO. Because social comparison processes seem widespread in organizations, social comparisons, and especially differences between employees in the tendency to compare themselves with others, deserve due attention from managers and human resources officers. First, managers and human resources officers should in general be careful in providing social comparison information to employees, for example on how well others are performing, as this might generate feelings of envy and insecurity. However, for new employees this might be beneficial when the other is presented as a role model with whom the employees may identify themselves, and may learn from that other, more experienced individual. Second, managers should be sensitive to the fact that for employees high in SCO social comparison information may have different effects than employees low in SCO. It may sometimes be difficult to know whether an employee is high or low in SCO, but this may become transparent when the employee spontaneously mentions comparisons with others, or when the employee shows a high level of insecurity. Often it may be wise to discourage such individuals from making social comparisons, but instead to focus on how he or she is doing his or her work. Third, in general, it may be recommendable to present accurate information on how well-​performing others have attained their high level of performance. This might induce identification or make the high performance of others less threatening. To conclude, given the prevalence of social comparisons in organizations, this issue deserves due attention from managers and human resources officers to prevent the potential destructive effects of social comparison on the well-​being and motivation of employees.

118   A.P. Buunk

References Adams, J. S. (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–​299. Beach, S. R., & Tesser, A. (2000). Self-​evaluation maintenance and evolution: Some speculative notes. In L. Wheeler & J. Suls (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 123–​140). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. Brickman, P., & Bulman, R. J. (1977). Pleasure and pain in social comparison. In J. Suls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Buckley, F. H. (2014). Schadenfreude and laughter. In W. W. van Dijk & J. W. Ouwerkerk (Eds.), Schadenfreude: Understanding pleasure at the misfortune of others (pp 219–​226). New York: Cambridge University Press. Buunk, A. P. (2022). Social comparison in organizations. In J. M. Peíro (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. Buunk, A. P., Aan ’t Goor, J., & Castro Solano, A. (2010). Intrasexual competition at work: Sex differences in the jealousy-​evoking effect of rival characteristics in work settings. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 671–​684. doi: 10.1177/​0265407510368964 Buunk, A. P., Belmonte, J., Peiró, J. M., Zurriaga, R., & Gibbons, F. X. (2005a). Diferencias individuates en la comparación social: Propiedades de la Escala Española de Orientation hacia la Comparación Social [Individual differences on social comparison: Properties of the Spanish Scale of Social Comparison Orientation]. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 37, 561–​579. Buunk, A. P., & Brenninkmeijer, V. (2001). When individuals dislike exposure to an actively coping role model: Mood change as related to depression and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 537–​548. Buunk, A. P., Castro Solano, A., Zurriaga, R., & Gonzales, P. (2011). Gender differences in the jealousy-​evoking effect of rival characteristics: A study in Spain and Argentina. Journal of Cross-​Cultural Psychology,42,323–​439. Buunk, A. P., & Gibbons, F. X. (2006). Social comparison orientation: A new perspective on those who do and those who do not compare with others. In S. Guimond (Ed.), Social comparison and social psychology: Understanding cognition, intergroup, relationship, and culture (pp 15–​32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Buunk, A. P., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). New directions in social comparison research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 467–​475. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ejsp.77. Buunk, A. P, Nauta, A., & Molleman, E. (2004). In search of the true group animal: the effects of affiliation orientation and social comparison orientation upon group satisfaction. European Journal of Personality, 18, 1–​13. Buunk, A. P., Peiró, J. M., & Griffioen, C. (2007). A positive role model may stimulate career-​oriented behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1489–​1500. doi: 10.1111/​ j.1559-​1816.2007.00223.x Buunk, A. P., Peíró, J. M., Rodríguez, I., & Bravo, J. M. (2007). A loss of status and a sense of defeat: An evolutionary perspective on professional burnout. European Journal of Personality, 21, 471–​485. Buunk, B. P., Van der Zee, K. I., Van Yperen, N. W. (2001). Neuroticism and social comparison orientation as moderators of affective responses to social comparison at work. Journal of Personality, 69, 745–​763.

Social Comparison in Organizations    119 Buunk, B. P. & Ybema, J. F. (1997). Social comparisons and occupational stress: the identifaction-​contrast model. In B. P. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.) Health, coping and well-​ being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 359–​388). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Buunk, A. P., Ybema, J. F., Gibbons, F. X., & Ipenburg, M. L. (2001). The affective consequences of social comparison as related to professional burnout and social comparison orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 337–​351. doi: 10.1002/​ejsp.41 Buunk, A. P., Zurriaga, R., Gónzalez-​Romá, V., & Subirats, M. (2003). Engaging in upward and downward comparisons as a determinant of relative deprivation at work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 370–​388. doi: 10.1016/​S0001-​8791(02)00015-​5 Buunk, A. P., Zurriaga, R., & Peiró, J. M. (2010). Social comparison as a predictor of changes in burnout among nurses. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23, 181–​194. doi: 10.1080/​10615800902971521 Buunk, A. P., Zurriaga, R., Peíró, J. M., Nauta, A., & Gosalvez (2005b). Social comparisons at work as related to a cooperative social climate and to individual differences in social comparison orientation. Applied Psychology, 54, 61–​80. doi: 10.1111/​j.1464-​0597.2005.00196.x Carmona, C., Buunk, A. P., Peiró, J. M., Rodríguez, I., & Bravo, M. J. (2006). Do social comparison and coping play a role in the development of burnout? Cross-​sectional and longitudinal findings. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 83–​99.https://​doi. org/​10.1348/​0963​1790​5X40​808 Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, 51–​93. Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85–​113. De la Sablonnière, R., Tougas, F., De la Sablonnière, E., & Debrosse, R. (2012). Profound organizational change, psychological distress and burnout symptoms: The mediator role of collective relative deprivation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 776–​790. doi: 10.1177/​ 1368430212445074. Diener, E., & Fujita, F. (1997). Social comparisons and subjective well-​being. In A. P. Buunk & F. X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, & well-​being: Perspectives from social comparison theory (pp. 329–​358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dunn, J., Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2012). It hurts both ways: How social comparisons harm affective and cognitive trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117(1), 2–​14. https://​doi-​org.proxy-​ub.rug.nl/​10.1016/​j.obhdp.2011.08.001. Dijkstra, P., & Buunk, B. P. (2002). Sex differences in the jealousy-​evoking effect of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 829–​852. Eysenck, H. I., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Eysenck Personality Inventory Manual. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-​ consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43(4), 522. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–​140. doi: 10.1177/​001872675400700202. Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp. 183–​215). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Foley, S., Ngo, H., & Loi, R. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of upward and downward social comparisons: An investigation of Chinese employees. International Journal

120   A.P. Buunk of Organizational Analysis, 24(1), 145–​161. https://​doi-​org.proxy-​ub.rug.nl/​10.1108/​ IJOA-​02-​2014-​0743. Geurts, S. A., Buunk, B. P., & Schaufeli, W.B. (1994). Social comparison and absenteeism: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1871–​1890. Gibbons, F.X., & Buunk, A. P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison: Development of a scale of social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–​142. Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 227–​236. Gilbert, P. (2006). Evolution and depression: issues and implicatons. Psychological Medicine, 36, 287–​297. Gilbert, P., & Allan, S. (1998). The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: An exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 28, 585–​598. Gilbert, P., & Miles, J. N. V. (2000). Sensitivity to social put-​down: Its relationship to perceptions of social rank, shame, social anxiety, depression, anger and self-​other blame. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 757–​774. Gilbert, D., Price, J., & Allan, S. (1995). Social comparison, social attractiveness and evolution: How might they be related? New Ideas in Psychology, 13, 149–​165. doi: 10.1016/​ 0732-​118X(95)00002-​X Goodman, P. S., & Haisley, E. (2007). Social comparison processes in an organizational context: New directions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 109–​125. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.obhdp.2006.10.005. Greenberg, J., Ashton-​James, C. E., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2007). Social comparison processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(1), 22–​41. Grosser, T. J., Lopez-​Kidwell, V., Labianca, G., & Ellwardt, L. (2012). Hearing it through the grapevine: Positive and negative workplace gossip. Organizational Dynamics, 41, 52–​61. Helgeson, V. S., & Taylor, S. E. (1993). Social comparisons and adjustment among cardiac patients. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1171–​1195. Hemphill, K. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1991). Social comparisons and their affective consequences: The importance of comparison dimension and individual difference variables. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10, 372–​394. Hoorens, V., Pandelaere, M., Oldersma, F., & Sedikides, C. (2012). The hubris hypothesis: You can self-​enhance, but you’d better not show it. Journal of Personality, 80, 1237–​1274. Hyll, W. (2018). Relative concerns at the workplace: On the design of the firm as a social space. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28(2), 245–​264. https://​doi-​org.proxy-​ub.rug.nl/​10.1007/​ s00​191-​017-​0535-​3 Lee, S. Y. (2014). How do people compare themselves with others on social network sites? The case of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 253–​260. Massar, K., & Buunk, A. P. (2009). Rivals in the mind’s eye: Jealous responses after subliminal exposure to body shapes. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 129–​134. Michinov, N. (2005). Social comparison, perceived control, and occupational burnout. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 54(1), 99–​118. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ j.1464-​0597.2005.00198.x Neff, K. D., & Vonk, R. (2009). Self-​compassion versus global self-​esteem: Two different ways of relating to oneself. Journal of Personality, 77, 23–​50.

Social Comparison in Organizations    121 Ridge, J. W., Hill, A. D., & Aime, F. (2017). Implications of multiple concurrent pay comparisons for top-​team turnover. Journal of Management, 43(3), 671–​690. https://​doi-​org.proxy-​ ub.rug.nl/​10.1177/​01492​0631​4539​349 Schaufeli, W. B., & Buunk, B. P. (2003). Burnout: An overview of 25 years of research and theorizing. The Handbook of Work and Health Psychology, 2(1), 282–​424. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1983). Self-​directed attention and the comparison of self with standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 205–​222. Schneider, S. M., & Schupp, J. (2014). Individual differences in social comparison and its consequences for life satisfaction: Introducing a short scale of the Iowa–​Netherlands Comparison Orientation Measure. Social Indicators Research, 115, 767–​789. Schoeneman, T. J. (1981). Reports of the sources of self-​knowledge. Journal of Personality, 49, 284–​294. Shin, J., & Sohn, Y. W. (2015). Effects of employees’ social comparison behaviors on distributive justice perception and job satisfaction. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 43(7), 1071–​1084. https://​doi-​org.proxy-​ub.rug.nl/​10.2224/​sbp.2015.43.7.1071. Suls, J., & Wheeler, L., (2000). A selective history of classic and neo-​social comparison theory. In Suls, J., & Wheeler, L (Eds.), Handbook of social comparison: Theory and research (pp. 3–​ 22). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​1-​4615-​ 4237-​7_​1 Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Wittek, R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: The relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 250–​258. https://​doi-​org.proxy-​ub.rug.nl/​ 10.1037/​0021-​9010.92.1.250 Van der Zee, K. I., Oldersma, F. L., & Buunk, B. P., & Bos, D. A. J. (1998). Social comparison preferences among cancer patients as related to neuroticism and social comparison orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 801–​810. Want, S. C. (2009). Meta-​analytic moderators of experimental exposure to media portrayals of women on female appearance satisfaction: Social comparisons as automatic processes. Body Image, 6(4), 257–​269. Wert, S. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). A social comparison account of gossip. Review of General Psychology, 8(2), 122–​137. Wilson, A. E., & Ross, M. (2000). The frequency of temporal-​self and social comparisons in people’s personal appraisals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 928–​942. Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231-​248.

chapter 9

Expl orations of t h e Shad ow Re a l m Examining the Role of Dark Personality in the Workplace Peter D. Harms, Karen Landay, and Tyler Fezzey

The most ancient of conflicts is that between darkness and light. Sometimes this conflict is described in moral terms. In the Judeo-​Christian tradition, God creates light out of darkness, and it is good. Similarly, the Bible describes one’s goodness as radiating light like a candle in the dark. Other moral and philosophical traditions are less stark in their assessments and assumptions. Eastern traditions juxtapose yin and yang to express the conflict and complementary nature between darkness and light. Similarly, ancient Greek philosophers such as Parmenides describe the dualistic nature of man and the universe in terms of ever-​changing combinations of darkness and light. Despite these differences in approaches, a common element remains: that of the need to account for both darkness and light in order to fully understand the world around us. Twenty years ago, personality psychologists came to a similar conclusion. Although psychology itself had its origins in clinical practice, and thus had a long history of studying abnormal behaviors and cognitions, the rise of models such as the ‘Big Five’ (Goldberg, 1993; John & Srivastava, 1999) which eschewed ratings of moralistic or abnormal behaviors had come to predominate the field. In reaction to the development, many scholars began to recognize that aspects of human psychology critical for understanding unorthodox or counter-​normative decisions and behaviors were being ignored. Consequently, the field began to once again plumb the depths of human psychology to explore what later came to be labeled as “dark personality traits.”

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    123

Dark Personality Frameworks The beginnings of the study of dark personality can be traced back as far as Emil Kraepelin’s (Kraepelin & Diefendorf, 1904/​1907) early work on disturbed individuals, which identified problematic types of individuals such as the “morbid liars and swindlers” (individuals who derived joy from swindling others) and the “morally insane” (individuals who exhibited cruel behaviors and lacked the capacity for sympathy). However, the modern study of dark personality finds its origins at the turn of the twenty-​first century when research teams led by Robert Hogan and Delroy Paulhus both introduced frameworks for understanding what they deemed dark personality traits (Hogan & Hogan, 2001; Paulhus & Williams, 20021).

Hogan Derailers Hogan and Hogan (2001) originally conceptualized dark personality traits as aberrations or quirks of character that might reflect successful short-​term behavioral strategies, but which ultimately produced negative social consequences when used too often or for extended periods of time. Moreover, they argued that these characteristics were most likely to be displayed when individuals were stressed (Spain, Harms, & Wood, 2016), distracted, or were powerful enough to have little concern for what others thought of them (Hogan et al., 2021; Kaiser & Hogan, 2007; see Figure 9.1). Further, it was suggested that, although these characteristics may manifest in behavior somewhat rarely, they would nonetheless be associated with highly impactful outcomes such as lawsuits, job terminations, and organizational failures. Because of their particular focus on leadership outcomes, the Hogans labeled these traits as “derailers” because they were thought to be associated with behaviors which might end one’s career. The characteristics identified by the Hogans are loosely based on Axis-​2 disorders from the DSM-​4 (APA, 1994) and are usually assessed with the Hogan Development Survey (HDS; Hogan & Hogan, 1997). This inventory assesses 11 dimensions of dark personality organized around three major themes of dysfunction: Moving Away (emotional outbursts that drive others away), Moving Against (hostile actions associated with interpersonal conflict), and Moving Towards (irritating, obsequious, or ingratiating behaviors). These characteristics are labeled using euphemistic terms—​ such as “Colorful” for histrionic tendencies—​because they are frequently used in leadership development settings where clinical labels tend to cause strong reactance and resistance

1  The Paulhus and Williams (2002) paper is the first published account of the Dark Triad, but the framework was actually introduced a year earlier (see Williams et al., 2001). Similarly, the Hogan derailer model was introduced years earlier in a technical manual (Hogan & Hogan, 1997) which built on earlier work by Jones (1990).

124    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey

Dark Traits

Situational Factors Autonomy Stress Interpersonal Conflict

Dark Triad Narcissism Machiavellianism Psychopathy HDS Derailers Moving Away Moving Against Moving Toward

Normative Factors Gender Age Culture

Work Outcomes Individual Job Performance Workplace Deviance Creativity Turnover Group Performance Conflict Cohesion Organization Performance Culture

Figure 9.1  A framework for understanding dark personality at work

in trainees. Although the HDS remains the most widely used measure of dark personality in the world, it is used almost entirely in applied settings for selection and training (Harms, 2017). Consequently, within academic circles, the so-​called “Dark Triad,” which roughly aligns with the Moving Against trait theme, is more well known.

Dark Triad Shortly after the Hogans introduced the concept of dark traits, Paulhus and Williams (2002) published a paper describing a set of “subclinical traits” characterized by anti-​ social tendencies which they labeled the Dark Triad (D3). The D3 consists of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Although these traits had already been studied for decades, measures and models for understanding them had developed relatively independently (Harms, 2022b). But by bringing the three traits together, Paulhus and Williams were able to identify common elements across them, and the grouping and label proved to be tremendously popular with the academic community2. Of the D3 traits, the one which has received the most attention from organizational scholars is narcissism (Grijalva & Harms, 2014). Traditional models of narcissism describe it as being characterized by feelings of entitlement and self-​importance, an excessive need for attention, and a disregard for the feelings and needs of others (Miller et al., 2021; Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). More recent models such as the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Concept (NARC; Back et al., 2013) model suggest that narcissism is better understood as being driven by both the need to attain praise from 2  To be clear, the D3 were never intended to represent a taxonomy. Paulhus himself has argued for the inclusion of one other trait, sadism, to make a Dark Tetrad (Paulhus, Curtis, & Jones, 2018), while others have argued for the need to expand dark personality research to include other closely related traits (Harms & Sherman, 2021; Marcus & Zeigler-​Hill, 2015).

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    125 others (admiration) and a tendency to want to harm those who the narcissist views as challengers or potential competition (rivalry). Specifically, the model suggests that most individuals are content with self-​glorification but become hostile when they don’t receive the acclaim they think they deserve or when their agendas are hampered. An extension of this model, the Narcissism Spectrum Model (NSM; Rogoza, Cieciuch, J., & Strus, 2022) adds the propensity to feel isolated or enmity towards others that often characterizes a more neurotic and volatile form of narcissism called vulnerable narcissism (Miller et al., 2018). The most commonly used narcissism measures tend to be variants of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979), which consists of paired self-​report items that typically contrast a communal statement with an agentic statement or a moderately positive statement with an excessively positive statement. Thus, respondents do not report being narcissistic so much as reveal it by choosing to describe themselves as assertive and exceptional (vs. kind and fairly normal). Machiavellianism is the only one of the D3 that does not have its origin in clinical psychology. Rather, it is a trait derived by Richard Christie from the works of Niccolò Machiavelli (Christie & Geis, 1970). As described by Christie, Machiavellians have a cynical worldview and take a particular pleasure in being willing to deceive and manipulate others. Machiavellians typically understand that they are not good people but will believe that their deceptive behaviors are warranted because they see the world as a competitive and unfair place and that their behaviors reflect a recognition of this reality and a superior way of adapting to it. Further, they believe that others deserve to be exploited because they have not come to this same recognition. Machiavellianism is most often measured using the Mach-​IV (Christie & Geis, 1970), a series of statements asking respondents to report agreeing to cynical statements such as “Most people more easily forget the death of their parents than the loss of their property.” Although alternative measures have been introduced (e.g., Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009), subsequent validity studies have shown poor construct validity and convergence with similar measures (DeShong et al., 2017; Kessler et al., 2010). Psychopathy, often considered the darkest of the D3, is traditionally conceptualized as a combination of high levels of impulsivity and low levels of anxiety or empathy (Skeem et al., 2011). In this framework, psychopaths are thought to be more likely to engage in destructive behaviors because they lack regulatory self-​ control functions and tend not to learn from punishments because they do not truly experience remorse for hurting others. Alternative frameworks of psychopathy such as the triarchic theory of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Kreuger, 2009) instead argue that it is best understood as three dimensions: disinhibition, meanness, and boldness. Although psychopathy is typically assessed with a checklist in clinical settings, a number of scales have been developed where respondents are asked to self-​report behaviors seen as signaling psychopathic tendencies (e.g., Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007).

126    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey

Alternative Frameworks Although the Hogan derailers and D3 frameworks are the most widely used in real-​ world and research settings, there are other approaches to understanding subclinical personality that have received considerable research attention. Most common among these approaches is the tendency to try to explore a “dark core” that is common across all dark personality traits (e.g., Moshagen, Hilbig, & Zettler, 2018). For example, both aggression (Paulhus et al., 2018) and callousness (Paulhus, 2014) have been examined as possible core elements of the D3. Although not intended to be a measure of dark personality, the Honesty/​Humility dimension of the HEXACO model (Ashton & Lee, 2007; Ashton et al., 2004), an extended variant of the Big Five framework, also seems to roughly capture the moral/​immoral space assessed by the D3 quite well (Lee & Ashton, 2014). That said, most empirical efforts to derive or examine a dark core have tended to focus only on a limited set of dark traits and are frequently characterized by poor research designs, inadequate measures, and inappropriate sampling (Harms & Sherman, 2021; Muris et al., 2017). Consequently, many researchers have concluded that findings suggesting a dark core are likely due to statistical and methodological artifacts (Kowalski, Vernon, & Schermer, 2016; Trahair et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2017).

Assessment Issues with Dark Personality One of the major challenges with assessing dark personality traits is that respondents are typically either unwilling to divulge their dark natures or simply unaware that their behaviors are abnormal. Consequently, the heavy reliance on self-​report measures in this domain can jeopardize the accuracy and robustness of research findings. That said, some of the more cleverly designed measures, such as the HDS, NPI, and Mach-​IV, instead try to get respondents to report on attitudes that are thought to reflect dark impulses rather than reporting on patterns of behaviors, cognitions, and emotions directly. Some scholars have addressed the problem with self-​ reporting dark traits by attempting to assess dark personality using other-​reports. This approach brings with it another level of complexity because the individuals being rated may deliberately conceal evidence of the traits in question. Consequently, although other-​reports of dark personality often have high levels of agreement across raters, they frequently do not correlate very highly with self-​report measures (Harms, Jones, & Brummel, 2013; Lämmle, Nussbeck, & Ziegler, 2021; Maples-​Keller & Miller, 2018; Thomas, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2003). One possible reason for this is that the meaning of the items may not be consistent between when rated by individuals reflecting on their own cognitions, emotions, and behaviors and when these dimensions are rated by observers or acquaintances. But, to some degree, the disconnect between self and other raters likely

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    127 reflects the actual disconnect that exists in these relationships (Brummel & Osborn, 2022). As a result, although both self-​and other-​reports are likely to provide value for predicting organizational outcomes, caution should be used when interpreting them. One emergent trend in dark personality research is the increasing reliance on super-​ abbreviated measures of dark traits, such as the Dirty Dozen (DD; Jonason & Webster, 2010) and the Short Dark Triad (SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014), to make assessment sessions shorter and easier to administer. However, such measures have been criticized for failing to fully capture the breadth and multi-​dimensional nature of the target traits (see Credé et al., 2012). It is no surprise, then, that such measures have been criticized for poor psychometric properties as well as poor convergent and divergent validity (Carter et al., 2015; Kajonius et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2012; Rauthmann & Kolar, 2012). That said, more recent scale development efforts have shown that short measures of the D3 can be created that are both reliable and preserve construct fidelity by focusing more closely on the theoretical nature of the construct at hand when selecting items (e.g., Grosz et al., 2020; Leckelt et al., 2018). A related time-​saving effort has emerged out of the idea that it may be possible to construct proxies of dark personality traits from existing measures of the Big Five (e.g., Collison et al., 2018; Glover et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2001; Wille, De Fruyt, & De Clerq, 2013). Once again, criticisms of this approach have suggested that critical construct-​relevant content is likely lost when trying to reflect complex traits using these combinatorial approaches (Credé et al., 2016; Harms, 2022a), particularly when using measures of the Big Five that have been intentionally designed to exclude the moral and evaluative content that often defines dark personality traits (see Paunonen & Jackson, 2000; Saucier & Goldberg, 1998). It is little surprise, then, that such measures frequently fail to show evidence of convergent validity with traditional dark personality measures or even similar patterns of relationships with external correlates (Collison et al., 2018; Kückelhaus et al. 2020). One final emergent assessment method has been to derive proxy measures of dark personality traits using the spoken and/​or written words of target individuals. This approach has become increasingly popular among strategic management scholars who utilize these techniques for assessing CEOs and other high-​profile figures who would otherwise be very difficult to gain access to (e.g., Chatterjee & Hambrick, 2007; Cragun, Olsen, & Wright, 2020; Grijalva et al., 2020). However, this method remains largely unproven, as reviews of these approaches have suggested that they tend to produce inconsistent results and frequently are deficient in both validity and reliability (Holtzman et al., 2019; Molen et al., 2018; Van Scotter, 2020).

Workplace Outcomes of Dark Personality Given the breadth of dark personality models and surging interest in the topic, it can be difficult to summarize research findings documenting their value as predictors

128    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey of workplace outcomes (see Spain, Harms, & LeBreton, 2014). In general, most dark personality traits are thought to be negative in terms of their consequences for interpersonal relations. Moreover, because many of the dark traits also include aspects associated with deceptive and/​or dangerous behaviors, many of them could also be expected to be associated with detrimental workplace behaviors that are not specifically interpersonal in nature. It is no surprise, then, that meta-​analytic reviews of the D3 have found that they each have positive relationships with deviant workplace outcomes like counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs; Ellen et al., 2021; Grijalva & Newman, 2015; O’Boyle et al., 2012). Similar negative relationships with CWBs have been found for the Honesty/​Humility dimension of the HEXACO (Pletzer et al., 2019). The D3 traits have also all been identified as having positive associations with a proclivity to engage in sexual harassment (Muris et al., 2017). Both narcissism and psychopathy, but not Machiavellianism, have been linked with use of illegal drugs (Williams et al., 2001). In terms of unintentional harm to organizations, narcissism has been linked with a susceptibility to phishing emails (Curtis et al., 2018). Finally, and also in line with expectations, prior research has documented positive relationships between dark traits and work conflict (e.g., Baysinger, Scherer, & LeBreton, 2014) and a tendency to engage in destructive or toxic leadership styles (Harms et al., 2018; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). In terms of more beneficial workplace outcomes, prior research has suggested small positive relationships with creativity for both narcissism and Machiavellianism, but not psychopathy (Lebuda et al., 2021). In terms of interview success, narcissism has been shown to be a fairly consistent predictor of making a positive initial impression on others (Paulhus et al., 2013). Finally, meta-​analytic evidence has suggested that Machiavellianism and psychopathy, but not narcissism, have small negative effects on job performance (O’Boyle et al., 2012). Within the leadership domain, the relationship between dark traits and outcomes is somewhat more complex. For narcissism, meta-​analytic evidence suggests a positive relationship with becoming a leader (Grijalva et al., 2015a). However, the relationship between narcissism and leader effectiveness was found to be nonlinear in nature, with moderate levels of narcissism being associated with higher levels of leader effectiveness. For psychopathy, meta-​analytic evidence suggests a weak positive relationship with leader emergence, a weak negative relationship with leader effectiveness, and a moderately weak negative relationship with transformational leadership (Landay, Harms, & Credé, 2019; see also Harms & Landay, 2017). However, as with narcissism, there was also evidence that moderate levels of psychopathy were associated with higher levels of effectiveness. Moreover, only male leaders benefited from psychopathy when it came to emergence, and leaders with psychopathic tendencies were rated as performing worse only when they were women (Landay, Harms, & Credé, 2019). Evidence from studies using the HDS report a mixture of positive and negative relationships, depending on the specific characteristic being considered, with beneficial work outcomes. For example, HDS Excitable and Mischievous showed negative relationships with safety behaviors while HDS Diligent and Bold showed positive relationships (Furnham & Sherman, 2021). Similarly, HDS Cautious and Diligent were

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    129 generally positively associated with leader development while HDS Skeptical and Imaginative were generally negatively related (Harms, Spain, & Hannah, 2011). In terms of vocational choices and adjustment, there is evidence that individuals with dark traits may be more attracted to certain professions (Furnham, Hyde, & Trickey, 2014; Hirschfeld & Van Scotter, 2019). Furthermore, they may avoid professions that require sensitivity or relationship-​building and jobs where there is a lack of discretionary action or strong accountability. Although there is scant evidence that individuals with dark personalities will be less satisfied with their work (Jonason, Wee, & Li, 2015), there is accumulating support for the notion that individuals with higher levels of dark traits are more likely to exit the workplace to become self-​employed or engage in entrepreneurial activities (Brownell, McMullen, & O’Boyle, 2021; Harms, Patel, & Carnevale, 2020; Klotz & Neubaum, 2016; Wiklund et al., 2018).

Moderators of Dark Traits Although many of the relationships between dark personality traits and work outcomes are relatively small, there is consistent evidence that they predict such outcomes above and beyond Big Five traits, sometimes substantially (Harms et al., 2011; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Pletzer et al., 2019). That said, the accumulated evidence on dark personality traits has shown that their effects are frequently moderated by other contextual factors. For example, evidence suggests that having autonomy or power in one’s job role makes individuals feel less constrained by social norms and expectations and, consequently, more likely to display dark personality characteristics (Kaiser & Hogan, 2007; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016; but see also Wood & Harms, 2017). On the other hand, a number of studies have documented mitigation of the negative effects of dark characteristics, or even sometimes an association with positive outcomes, if the context or goals of the situation suggest that it is more in their interest to work with others than against them (e.g., Belschak, Den Hartog, & Kalshoven, 2015; Carnevale, Huang, & Harms, 2018a, 2018b; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015; Pfeffer, 2021). Another factor that regularly seems to moderate the degree to which dark traits are perceived or become problematic is the amount of time that someone is in a relationship or a job role (e.g., Paulhus, 1998). An additional crucial moderator of the effects of dark personality traits is gender. Meta-​analytic evidence suggests that there can be fairly substantial gender differences in terms of the average level of dark traits, but that it is highly dependent on what trait is being assessed, what measures are being used to assess the trait, and sometimes is limited to particular facets within a trait (Collison et al., 2021; Furnham, Hyde, & Trickey, 2014; Grijalva et al., 2015b; Harms, 2016; Muris et al., 2017; Szabo & Jones, 2019). For example, men are more prone to display the socially dominant aspects of trait narcissism (Grijalva et al., 2015b). It can also be the case that men and women may manifest dark traits in different ways (Verona & Vitale, 2006). For example, there is evidence to suggest that psychopathic tendencies in males are often displayed through violent or criminal behaviors, while in women high levels of psychopathy are expressed through

130    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey overreactions to minor provocations or perceived slights as well as highly sexualized or provocative displays (Hamburger, Lilienfeld, & Hogben, 1996). In addition to this, how observers interpret the behaviors associated with dark traits is also frequently dependent on gender norms and expectations (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Nevicka, 2015; Williams & Tiedens, 2016). For example, behaviors associated with psychopathic tendencies are often tolerated in male leaders but may lead to social sanctions when enacted by women (Landay, Harms, & Credé, 2019).

Conclusions and Future Directions There can be little doubt that dark personality traits represent an interesting and important topic of study for organizational scholars. They have proven their value as predictors of both everyday work behaviors as well as rare or critical events, strategic decision-​making, and the quality and nature of relationships in the workplace (Harms & Spain, 2015). That said, there remain critical areas where additional scholarship is needed in order to advance the study of dark personality in workplace. For example, to a large degree the study of dark traits has been limited in academic literature to a handful of traits, primarily the D3. A more comprehensive assessment of the value of dark traits will require utilizing more inclusive and nuanced models, such as the Hogan derailers or the Personality Inventory for the DSM-​5 (PID-​5; Krueger et al., 2011, 2012) and more work-​appropriate variants (see Guenole, 2014, 2018). Along similar lines, we also see a need for scholars to begin engaging in research that focuses on single traits rather than sets. This will allow the field to develop a more sophisticated understanding of the processes that drive these characteristics and the psychological factors (e.g., motives and emotions) that shape how and when they are displayed (Grapsas et al., 2020; Harms, Spain, & Wood, 2014; Lilienfeld et al., 2019; Wood, Gardner, & Harms, 2015). For example, by limiting their theorizing to just paranoia, Chan and McAllister (2013) were able to create a novel and compelling model of the antecedents and consequences of abusive supervision. Similarly, by utilizing models and measures that investigate the facets of particular traits, scholars can come to a better understanding of the mixed blessing that dark personality traits can be in workplace settings (e.g., Boudreaux & Sherman, 2022; Lilienfeld, Watts, & Smith, 2015; Liu et al., 2022). An increased focus on understanding individual traits would also provide much needed attention to under-​researched dark personality characteristics such as greed, insecure attachment styles, authoritarianism, and jealousy (Carnevale, Carson, & Huang, 2021; Harms, 2011; Harms et al., 2018; Marcus & Zeigler-​Hill, 2015). Embracing emergent theoretical accounts specifically designed to account for dark personality, such as mimicry-​deception theory (Jones, 2014), could help facilitate this new direction. We also see a need for scholars to start utilizing more robust measures and methods. For example, the D3 could be assessed with more theoretically sound measures of dark traits such as the M7 and P7 (Grosz et al., 2020) or the Narcissistic Admiration

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    131 and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ; Leckelt et al., 2018) instead of relying so heavily on measures that have documented validity issues (e.g., DD). Similarly, given the interpersonal nature of many dark personality traits, study designs employing more multi-​source or longitudinal designs would help to better understand not only the social consequences of these traits, but also the interpersonal dynamics between leaders and followers when either or both exhibit dark personality characteristics (Belshak, Muhammad, & Den Hartog, 2018; Harms & Landay, 2022; Padilla, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2007). We also believe that a multi-​perspective approach whereby assessments are made of not only self-​and other-​ratings, but also meta-​perceptions (what you think others think of you; see Foster et al., 2022; Maples-​Keller & Miller, 2018) and perceptual tendencies (whether or not you tend to see others in a positive or negative light; see Harms & Luthans, 2012; Wood, Harms, & Vazire, 2010) will shed new light on the topic of dark personality. Within the workplace itself, we see a need to move beyond establishing basic linear connections of dark traits to organizational behaviors such as job performance and CWBs. Rather, future research could embrace the idea that dark traits tend to be activated by situational triggers, often interpersonal, or by stress. Daily diary or event-​sampling approaches could allow researchers to not only document which events may trigger individuals high on dark traits to lash out, but also to evaluate how stable dark traits are on a day-​to-​day basis (Hardin & Smith, 2022; Nübold, van Gils, & Zacher, 2022). Another area for further exploration is the role of dark personality in groups and teams. To date, there has been little research documenting the consequences of having many individuals with dark personalities in a group (for exceptions, see Bachrach et al. 2022; Dierdorff & Fisher, 2022; Grijalva et al., 2020). However, much like the emerging literature investigating dark personality in leader-​follower dyads (Belschak, Muhammad, & Den Hartog, 2018; London, 2019), this work has been conducted with a focus on single traits. We would argue that there may be value in investigating potentially combustible combinations between individuals who display elevated levels of different traits. For example, individuals who are obsessed with details and following rules (HDS-​Diligent) working alongside those who enjoy flouting rules and provoking reactions in others (HDS-​Mischievous) seem particularly likely to have their nerves frayed to the point that an outburst is inevitable. Finally, we believe that there is a need for systematic investigations of the organizational climates and cultures that attract, tolerate, or even encourage the behaviors associated with dark personality. What signals are these organizations, teams, or leaders sending and what values are they communicating that might make individuals with dark personality dispositions believe that they would be welcome or even celebrated for engaging in behaviors that are normally socially sanctioned? To be clear, organizational scholars need to move beyond simply documenting the consequences of dark personality and begin advancing a research agenda aimed at prevention and mitigation with actionable information that can better inform workplace practices in the real world. To borrow the analogy of Plato’s cave, true understanding will not come from merely

132    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey watching shadows. Rather, we must move toward the light in order to recognize their causes and put ourselves in a position to do something about them.

References American Psychological Association (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Ashton, M., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., De Raad, B. (2004). A six-​factor structure of personality-​descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–​366. Ashton, M. & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–​166. Bachrach, D., Patel, P., Guedes, M., & Harms, P. D. (2022). CEO narcissism, top management team transactive memory systems and firm performance: An upper echelons perspective on CEO admiration and rivalry narcissism. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31, 61–​76. Back, M., Kufner, A., Dufner, M., Gerlach, M., Tanja, M., Rauthmann, J., & Denissen, J. (2013). Narcissistic admiration and rivalry: Disentangling the bright and dark sides of narcissism. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 105, 1013–​1037. Baysinger, M., Scherer, K., & LeBreton, J. (2014). Exploring the disruptive effects of psychopathy and aggression on group processes and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 48–​65. Belschak, F., Den Hartog, D., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians: How to translate Machiavellians’ selfishness into pro-​organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 41, 1934–​1956. Belschak, F. D., Muhammad, R. S., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018). Birds of a feather can butt heads: When Machiavellian employees work with Machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 151, 613–​626. Boudreaux, M. J., & Sherman, R. A. (2022). The Hogan Development Survey. In P. K. Jonason, Shining light on the dark side of personality: Measurement properties and theoretical advances (pp. 215–​230). Oxford, UK: Hogrefe. Brownell, K., McMullen, J., & O’Boyle, E. (2021). Fatal attraction: A systematic review and research agenda of the dark triad in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 36, 106106. Brummel, B. & Osborn, S. (2022). How to define and measure the dark side in business. In T. Hayes & D. Lusk (Eds.). Overcoming bad leadership in organizations (pp. 29–​50). New York: Oxford University Press. Carnevale, J. B., Carson, J. E., & Huang, L. (2021). Greedy for thee or greedy for me? A contingency model of positive and negative reactions to leader greed. Journal of Business Research, 132, 897–​905. Carnevale, J., Huang, L., & Harms, P. D. (2018a). Speaking up to the “emotional vampire”: A conservation of resources perspective. Journal of Business Research, 91, 48–​59. Carnevale, J., Huang, L., & Harms, P. D. (2018b). Leader consultation mitigates the harmful effects of leader narcissism: A belongingness perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 146, 76–​84.

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    133 Carter, G., Campbell, A., Muncer, S., & Carter, K. (2015). A Mokken analysis of the Dark Triad ‘Dirty Dozen’: Sex and age differences in scale structures, and issues with individual items. Personality and Individual Differences, 83, 185–​191. Chan, M. & McAllister, D. (2013). Abusive supervision through the lens of employee state paranoia. Academy of Management Review, 39, 44–​66. Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2007). It’s all about me: Narcissistic chief executive officers and their effects on company strategy and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 351–​386. Christie, R. & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press. Collison, K., South, S., Vize, C., Miller, J. & Lynam, D. (2021). Exploring gender differences in Machiavellianism using a measurement invariance approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103, 258–​266. Collison, K., Vize, C., Miller, J., & Lynam, D. (2018). Development and preliminary validation of a five factor model measure of Machiavellianism. Psychological Assessment, 30, 1401–​1407. Cragun, O., Olsen, K., & Wright, P. (2020). Making CEO narcissism research great: A review and meta-​analysis of CEO narcissism. Journal of Management, 46, 908–​936. Credé, M., Harms, P. D., Blacksmith, N., & Wood, D. (2016). Assessing the utility of compound trait estimates of narrow personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 503–​513. Credé, M., Harms, P. D., Nierhorster, S., & Gaye-​Valentine, A. (2012). An evaluation of the consequences of using short measures of the Big Five personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 874–​888. Curtis, S., Rajven, P., Jones, D., & Gonzalez, C. (2018). Phishing attempts among the dark triad: Patterns of attack and vulnerability. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 174–​182. Dahling, J., Whitaker, B., & Levy, P. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35, 219–​257. De Hoogh, A., Den Hartog, D., & Nevicka, B. (2015). Gender differences in the perceived effectiveness of narcissistic leaders. Applied Psychology, 64, 473–​498. DeShong, H., Helle, A., Lengel, G., Meyer, N., Mullins, S. (2017). Facets of the Dark Triad: Utilizing the Five-​Factor Model to describe Machiavellianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 218–​223. Dierdorff, E. & Fisher, D. (2022). Problematic personalities in teams: Implications for performance trajectories and resilience to unexpected change. Personnel Psychology, 75, 589–​617. Ellen, B. P., Alexander, K., Mackey, J., McAllister, C., & Carson, J. (2021). Portrait of a workplace deviant: A clearer picture of the Big Five and Dark Triad as predictors of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106, 1950–​1961. Foster, J., Stone, T. A., Harms, P. D., & Jawahar, J. (2022). A multi-​perspectives approach to personality assessment. Consulting Psychology Journal, 74(4), 347–​362 . Furnham, A., Hyde, G., & Trickey, G. (2014). The dark side of career preference: Dark side traits, motives, and values. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 106–​114. Furnham, A., & Sherman, R. A. (2021). Dark side personality and safety-​related traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 171, 110510. Glover, N., Miller, J., Lynam, D., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. (2012). The Five-​Factor Narcissism Inventory: A five-​factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500–​512. Goldberg, L. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–​34.

134    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey Grapsas, S., Brummelman, E., Back, M., & Denissen, J. (2020). The “why” and “how” of narcissism: A process model of narcissistic status pursuit. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 150–​172. Grijalva, E. & Harms, P. D. (2014). Narcissism: An integrative synthesis and dominance complementarity model. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28, 108–​127. Grijalva, E., Harms, P. D., Newman, D., Gaddis, B. & Fraley, R. C. (2015a). Narcissism and leadership: A meta-​analytic review of linear and nonlinear relationships. Personnel Psychology, 68, 1–​47. Grijalva, E., & Newman, D. (2015). Narcissism and counterproductive work behavior (CWB): Meta-​analysis and consideration of collectivist culture, Big Five personality, and narcissism’s facet structure. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64, 93–​126. Grijalva, E., Newman, D., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R., Yan T. (2015b). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-​ analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141, 261–​301. Grijalva, E., Maynes, T., Badura, K., & Whiting, S. (2020). Examining the “I” in team: A longitudinal investigation of the influence of team narcissism composition on team outcomes in the NBA. Academy of Management Journal, 63, 7–​33. Grosz, M., Harms, P. D., Dufner, M., Kraft, L., & Wetzel, E. (2020). Reducing the overlap between Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy: The M7 and P7 scales. Collabra, 6, 17799. Guenole, N. (2014). Maladaptive personality at work: Exploring the darkness. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 85–​97. Guenole, N. (2018). The hierarchical structure of work-​related maladaptive personality traits. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 83–​90. Hamburger, M., Lilienfeld, S., & Hogben, M. (1996). Psychopathy, gender, and gender roles: Implications for antisocial and histrionic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 10, 41–​55. Hardin, B. S., & Smith, C. V. (2022). Darker by the day: Daily variability in dark personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 185, 111248. Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 285–​296. Harms, P. D. (2016). When high potential women go bad. Talent Quarterly, 12, 49–​51. Harms, P. D. (2017). Hogan Development Survey. In V. Zeigler-​Hill & T. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences. New York: Springer. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​28099-​8_​36-​1 Harms, P. D. (2022a). Bad is stronger than good: A review of the models and measures of dark personality. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(4), 280–​289. Harms, P. D. (2022b). Dark Triad. In G. Goethals, S. Allison, & G. Sorenson (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of leadership studies. London: Sage. Harms, P. D., Jones, D. N., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). The mini-​markers of evil: A new measure for the assessment of dark personality traits. Association for Research in Personality, Charlotte, NC. Harms, P. D. & Landay, K. (2017). Do you need a killer instinct? Talent Quarterly, 14, 44–​47. Harms, P. D. & Landay, K. (2022). Authoritarianism: Understanding the followers of the dark side. In Lusk, D. & Hayes, T. (Eds.). Overcoming bad leadership in organizations. (pp. 159–​ 175). New York: Oxford University Press.

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    135 Harms, P. D. & Luthans, F. (2012). Measuring implicit psychological constructs in organizational behavior: An example using psychological capital. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 589–​594. Harms, P. D., Patel, P., & Carnevale, J. (2020). Self-​centered and self-​employed: Gender and the relationship between narcissism and self-​employment. Journal of Business Research, 121, 170–​179. Harms, P. D. & Sherman, R. (2021). What falls outside of the Big Five? Darkness, derailers, and beyond. In D. Wood, S. Read, P. D. Harms, & A. Slaughter (Eds.) Measuring and modeling persons and situations (pp. 33–​68). London: Academic Press. Harms, P. D. & Spain, S. (2015). Beyond the bright side: Dark personality at work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 64, 15–​24. Harms, P. D., Spain, S., & Hannah, S. (2011). Leader development and the dark side of personality. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 495–​509. Harms, P. D., Spain, S., Hannah, S., Hogan, J., & Foster, J. (2011). You underestimate the power of the dark side: Subclinical traits, the big 5, and performance. Presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference, Chicago, IL. Harms, P. D., Spain, S., & Wood, D. (2014). Mapping personality in dark places. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 7, 114–​117. Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P., & Vogelgesang-​Lester, G. (2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited: A review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly, 29, 105–​122. Hirschfeld, R. & Van Scotter, J. (2019). Vocational behavior from the dark side. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 110, 303–​316. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 40–​51. Hogan, R., Kaiser, R., Sherman, R., & Harms, P. D. (2021). Twenty years on the dark side: Six lessons about bad leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 73, 199–​213. Holtzman, N., Tackman, A., Carey, A., Brucks, M., Küfner, A., Deters, F., . . . Mehl, M. (2019). Linguistic markers of grandiose narcissism: A LIWC analysis of 15 samples. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38, 773–​786. John, O. & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–​138). New York: Guilford. Jonason, P. & Webster, G. (2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22, 420–​432. Jonason, P., Wee, S., & Li, N. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige: Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 112–​116. Jones, W. H. (1990). User’s manual for PROFILE. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems. Jones, D. (2014). Predatory personalities as behavioral mimics and parasites: Mimicry–​ deception theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 445–​451. Jones, D. & Paulhus, D. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–​41.

136    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey Kaiser, R. & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side of discretion: Leader personality and organizational decline. In R. Hooijberg, J. Hunt, J. Antonakis, K. Boal, & N. Lane (Eds.), Being there even when you are not: Leading through strategy, structures and systems. Monographs in leadership and management (Vol. 4, pp. 173–​193). London: Elsevier. Kajonius, P., Persson, B., Rosenberg, P., & Garcia, D. (2016). The (mis) measurement of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen: Exploitation at the core of the scale, PeerJ, 4, e1748. Kessler, S., Bandelli, A., Spector, P., Borman, W., Nelson, C., & Penney, L. (2010). Re-​examining Machiavelli: A three-​dimensional model of Machiavellianism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1868–​1896. Klotz, A. & Neubaum, D. (2016). Research on the dark side of personality traits in entrepreneurship: Observations from an organizational behavior perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40, 7–​17. Kowalski, C., Vernon, P., & Schermer, J. (2016). The general factor of personality: The relationship between the Big One and the Dark Triad. Personality and Individual Differences, 88, 256–​260. Kraepelin, E., & Diefendorf, A. R. (1904/​1907). Clinical psychiatry: A text-​book for students and physicians (7th ed.). New York: The Macmillan Company. Krueger, R., Eaton, N., Clark, L., Watson, D., Markon, K., Derringer, J., Skodol, A., & Livesley, W. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-​5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 170–​191. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-​5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–​1890. Kückelhaus, B., Blickle, G., Kranefeld, I., Körnig, T., & Genau, H. (2020). Five Factor Machiavellianism: Validation of a new measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103, 509–​522. Lämmle, L., Nussbeck, F. W., & Ziegler, M. (2021). Hello from the other side: Can we perceive others’ darkness? Observers’ accuracy of the Dark Triad. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103, 106–​119. Landay, K., Harms, P. D., & Credé, M. (2019). Shall we serve the dark lords? A meta-​analytic review of psychopathy and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104, 183–​196. Lebuda, I., Figura, B., & Karwowski, M. (2021). Creativity and the Dark Triad: A meta-​analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 92, 104088. Leckelt, M., Wetzel, E., Gerlach, T., Ackerman, R., Miller, J., Chopik, W., & Back, M. D. (2018). Validation of the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire Short Scale (NARQ-​S) in convenience and representative samples. Psychological Assessment, 30, 86–​96. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2–​5. Levenson, M., Kiehl, K., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–​158. Lilienfeld, S. & Andrews, B. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-​report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–​524. Lilienfeld, S., Watts, A., Murphy, B., Costello, T., Bowes. S., Smith, S., Latzman, R., Haslam, N., & Tabb, K. (2019). Personality disorders as emergent interpersonal syndromes: Psychopathic personality as a case example. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33, 577–​622.

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    137 Lilienfeld, S., Watts, A., & Smith, S. (2015). Successful psychopathy: A scientific status report. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 298–​303. Liu, X., Zheng, X., Li, N., Yu, Y., Harms, P. D., & Yang, J. (2022). Both a blessing and a curse? A social cognitive approach to the paradoxical effects of leader narcissism. Human Relations, 75(11), 2011–​2038. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​001872​6721​1015​925 London, M. (2019). Leader-​follower narcissism and subgroup formation in teams: A conceptual model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34, 429–​442. Maples-​Keller, J. & Miller, J. (2018). Insight and the Dark Triad: Comparing self-​and meta-​ perceptions in relation to psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9, 30–​39. Marcus, D. & Zeigler-​Hill, V. (2015). A big tent for dark personality traits. Social and Personality Compass, 9/​8, 434–​446. Miller, J., Back, M., Lynam, D., & Wright, A. (2021). Narcissism today: What we know and what we need to learn. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 519–​525. Miller, J., Few, L., Seibert, L., Watts, A., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. (2012). An examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psychopathy: A cautionary tale about the costs of brief measures. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1048–​1053. Miller, J., Lynam, D., Vize, C., Crowe, M., Sleep, C., Maples-​Keller, J., Few, L., & Campbell, W. K. (2018). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality, 86, 186–​199. Miller, J., Lynam, D., Widiger, T., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the Five-​Factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–​276. Molen, R., Kaplan, S., Choi, E., & Montoya, D. (2018). Judgments of the Dark Triad based on Facebook profiles. Journal of Research in Personality, 73, 150–​163. Morf, C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-​ regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177–​196. Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B., & Zettler, I. (2018). The dark core of personality. Psychological Review, 125, 656–​688. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-​analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad (Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 183–​204. Nübold, A., van Gils, S., & Zacher, H. (2022). Daily work role stressors and dark triad states. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230, 311–​320. O’Boyle, E., Forsyth, D., Banks, G., & McDaniel, M. (2012). A meta-​analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 557–​579. Padilla, A., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptible followers, and conducive environments. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 176–​194. Patrick, C., Fowles, D., & Kreuger, R. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–​938. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-​enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197–​1208. Paulhus, D. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Perspectives in Psychological Science, 23, 421–​426.

138    P.D. Harms, K. Landay, and T. Fezzey Paulhus, D., Curtis, S., & Jones, D. (2018). Aggression as a trait: The Dark Tetrad alternative. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 88–​92. Paulhus, D., Westlake, B., Calvez, S., & Harms, P. D. (2013). Self-​presentation style in job interviews: The role of personality and culture. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2042–​2059. Paulhus, D. & Williams, K. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556–​568. Paunonen, S., & Jackson, D. (2000). What is beyond the Big Five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68, 821–​835. Pfeffer, J. (2021). The Dark Triad may be not so dark: Exploring why ‘toxic’ leaders are so common—​With some implications for scholarship and education. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 41, 540–​551. Pletzer, J., Bentvelzen, M., Oostrom, J., & de Vries, R. (2019). A meta-​analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 112, 369–​383. Raskin, R. & Hall, C. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590–​590. Rauthmann, J. & Kolar, G. (2012). How “dark” are the Dark Triad traits? Examining the perceived darkness of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 884–​889. Rogoza, R., Cieciuch, J., & Strus, W. (2022). Vulnerable Isolation and Enmity Concept: Disentangling the blue and dark face of vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 96, 104167. Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. (1998). What is beyond the Big Five? Journal of Personality, 66, 495–​524. Skeem, J., Polaschek, D., Patrick, C., & Lilienfeld, S. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 95–​162. Spain, S., Harms, P. D., & LeBreton, J. (2014). The dark side of personality at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, S41–​S60. Spain, S., Harms, P. D., & Wood, D. (2016). Stress, well-​being, and the dark side of leadership. Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, 14, 33–​59. Szabo, E. & Jones, D. (2019). Gender differences moderate Machiavellianism and impulsivity: Implications for Dark Triad research. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 160–​165. Thomas, C., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2003). Factorial structure of the pathological personality as evaluated by peers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 81–​91. Trahair, C., Baran, L., Flakus, M., Kowalski, C., & Rogoza, R. (2020). The structure of the Dark Triad traits: A network analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, 110265. Van Scotter, J. R. (2020). Narcissism in CEO Research: A review and replication of the archival approach. Management Review Quarterly, 70, 629–​674. Verona, E., & Vitale, J. (2006). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 415–​ 436). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Watts, A., Waldman, I., Smith, S., Poore, H., & Lilienfeld, S. (2017). The nature and correlates of the Dark Triad: The answers depend on the questions. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 951–​968.

Explorations of the Shadow Realm    139 Wiklund, J., Hatak, I., Patzell, H., & Shepherd, D. (2018). Mental disorders in the entrepreneurial context: When being different can be an advantage. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32, 182–​206. Wille, B., De Fruyt, F., & De Clerq, B. (2013). Expanding and reconceptualizing aberrant personality at work: Validity of five-​factor model aberrant personality tendencies to predict career outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 66, 173–​223. Williams, K., McAndrew, A., Learn, T., Harms, P. D., & Paulhus, D. (2001). The Dark Triad returns: Entertainment preferences and antisocial behavior among narcissists, Machiavellians, and psychopaths. American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Williams, K., Paulhus, D., & Hare, R. (2007). Capturing the four-​factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-​report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–​219. Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta-​analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 165–​197. Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122–​126. Wood, D., Gardner, M., & Harms, P. D. (2015). How functionalist and process approaches to behavior can explain trait covariation. Psychological Review, 122, 84–​111. Wood, D. & Harms, P. D. (2017). Evidence of non-​corresponsive causal relationships between personality traits and social power over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 33–​45. Wood, D., Harms, P. D., & Vazire, S. (2010). Perceiver effects as projective tests: What your general perceptions of others says about you. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 174–​190.

chapter 10

Moderating Mac h iav e l l i How Do Situational Characteristics Shape the Expression of Machiavellianism in the Workplace? Destiny R. Hemsey and Jason J. Dahling

Machiavellianism refers to a personality trait derived from the writing of Niccolo Machiavelli, primarily in The Prince (1513/​1981), in which he described the foundations for seizing and retaining political power.1 Two key developments catapulted this 500-​ year-​old concept into the modern organizational sciences. First, Christie and Geis (1970) re-​articulated Machiavelli’s arguments as a contemporary individual difference that involves an amoral, cynical worldview and a willingness to manipulate others to achieve desired ends. This conceptualization of Machiavellianism has important relevance for organizational settings, where a growing body of research demonstrates that people high in Machiavellianism (“high Machs”) exhibit a wide range of counterproductive and self-​interested workplace behaviors (e.g., Dahling, Kuyumcu, & Librizzi, 2012; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Jones, 2016; O’Boyle et al., 2012). Second, Machiavellianism was included in the Dark Triad model of dysfunctional personality alongside psychopathy and narcissism (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). The Dark Triad model clarified that Machiavellianism is a sub-​clinical personality trait distributed among the general population, and it provided a useful foundation for understanding the broader suite of individual differences that shape costly counterproductive work behaviors (CWB; e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2012). Despite the mass of research documenting the bivariate relationship between Machiavellianism and CWB, a growing body of findings demonstrate that high Machs do not exhibit unrestrained counterproductive behavior. High Machs frequently behave selfishly and without remorse, but their choices and actions are controlled and dependent on environmental characteristics that shape their odds of success (Jones, 2016). From an evolutionary standpoint, Machiavellianism represents a strategy of 1 

Note: Both authors made equal contributions to this work.

Moderating Machiavelli   141 social defection that seizes collective resources for the self at the expense of others. This strategy does pay off under certain circumstances, but it can easily backfire and threaten survival if exercised in haphazard ways that mobilize hostile collective responses (Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). These conceptual arguments point to a clear need to better understand what situational characteristics encourage or suppress Machiavellian behavior, particularly in the workplace, and to organize this understanding in terms of relevant theories that speak to “person/​situation” interactions (Cortina et al., 2021; Judge & Zapata, 2015). Doing so offers guidance to future researchers and provides clear, practical insights for managers who manage high Machs and need to control their behaviors. To this end, our chapter offers the first systematic review of the literature examining situational moderators of the relationships between Mach and workplace behaviors in the workplace. We build on recent theorizing by Jones and Mueller (2022) to broadly review existing findings that demonstrate such interactions. Further, we argue that much of this research can be organized under the two broad frameworks for understanding person/​situation interactions in the organizational sciences (Judge & Zapata, 2015): situational strength theory (SST; Meyer & Dalal, 2009; Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010) and trait activation theory (TAT; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000; Tett, Toich, & Ozkam, 2021). In the following sections, we briefly overview Machiavellianism in organizational settings, and then provide a high-​level summary of the propositions of SST and TAT. We then review existing research that documents situational moderators of the relationship between Mach and workplace behaviors and explore when SST or TAT each provide greater conceptual clarity for understanding these effects. We conclude by identifying important directions for future research on Mach in the workplace and articulating practical advice for managers to utilize in daily practice.

Machiavellianism in the Workplace Early conceptualizations of Machiavellianism emphasized three key characteristics of high-​Mach individuals (Christie, 1970). First, high Machs are intensely cynical and untrustworthy, and they expect that other people will prioritize their own self-​interests when making decisions. Second, because other people are untrustworthy, high Machs rely on manipulative tactics to deceive and influence others in the pursuit of desired outcomes. Third, high Machs are unconstrained by ethical and normative standards, which they easily discard if unethical or amoral tactics would provide an expedient advantage in the pursuit of their goals. Subsequent research has elaborated on the construct of Machiavellianism in important ways, particularly by underscoring that high Machs are especially motivated to engage in these manipulative and amoral behaviors in the pursuit of status, autonomy, or power, all of which provide a greater degree of protection against untrustworthy others (Brownell, McMullen, & O’Boyle, 2021; Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; McHoskey, 1999; Monaghan, Bizumic, & Sellbom, 2016).

142    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling Machiavellianism research, particularly in workplace contexts, was revitalized with the development of Paulhus and Williams’ (2002) Dark Triad model. This model, which places Machiavellianism alongside narcissism and psychopathy, articulated these individual differences as sub-​clinical/​non-​pathological personality constructs, which was an important distinction that drew new interest from fields outside of clinical psychology (Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). The model further clarifies that each of the three Dark Triad constructs has similar, yet distinct components in their goals and means of emergence, which laid a foundation for developing theories specific to Machiavellianism (and not other “dark” or undesirable traits). For example, people high in narcissism are hypersensitive to criticism and express arrogance, in contrast to high Machs who do not express these characteristics. Similarly, people high in psychopathy express outright antisocial behavior, which does not characterize high Machs (Jones & Mueller, 2022; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Research building on the Dark Triad model demonstrates that Machiavellianism is related to, but distinct from, other personality constructs and models (Dahling, Mehta, & Sehgal, 2022; Furnham, Richards, & Paulhus, 2013). Its strongest correlates are the honesty-​humility dimension of the HEXACO model (Howard & Zandt, 2020; Lee & Ashton, 2014), agreeableness from the Big Five model (Muris et al., 2017; O’Boyle et al., 2015) and the other two Dark Triad traits (Muris et al., 2017; O’Boyle et al., 2012; O’Boyle et al., 2015). Conversely, Machiavellianism exhibits weak to non-​significant relationships with the remainder of the Big Five and HEXACO dimensions (Lee & Ashton, 2005; O’Boyle et al., 2015), behavioral inhibition and behavioral approach (Włodarska et al., 2021), emotional intelligence (Michels & Schulze, 2021), and general mental ability (Michels, 2022; O’Boyle et al., 2013). Consequently, there is value in studying Machiavellianism to understand its unique impacts on workplace behavior. Studies of the consequences of Machiavellianism in the workplace paint a bleak picture. Machiavellianism is consistently associated with a wide range of interpersonal and organizationally-​directed CWBs (Belschak, Muhammad, & Den Hartog, 2018; Ellen et al., 2021; O’Boyle et al., 2012). For example, research on specific counterproductive behaviors links Machiavellianism to higher levels of co-​worker antagonism and intimidation (Whitaker & Dahling, 2013), undermining and sabotage (Castille, Kuyumcu, & Bennett, 2017; Serenko & Choo, 2020) and careerist self-​interest (Kuyumcu & Dahling, 2014). Moreover, Machiavellianism is negatively related to both self-​and other-​ratings of task and contextual performance (Eissa et al., 2019; O’Boyle et al., 2012; Webster & Smith, 2019; Zagenczyk et al., 2014; Zettler & Solga, 2013; ), and supervisor ratings of civic virtue (Zagenczyk et al., 2014). High Machs who attain leadership positions continue to behave in counterproductive ways, which is most commonly demonstrated by their greater levels of abusive supervision toward subordinates (De Hoogh, Den Hartog, & Belschak, 2021; Kiazad et al., 2010; Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). O’Boyle and colleagues (2012) explained this broad pattern of maladaptive workplace behaviors in terms of social exchange theory. They submitted that people high in Dark Triad traits approach social exchanges without the sense of reciprocity and normative obligation that normally characterizes these interactions. Instead, their self-​interest and

Moderating Machiavelli   143 distrustful world view encourages them to withhold any effort perceived as unnecessary, and to take resources and opportunities from others without concern for the ethical or normative implications of those actions. However, unmitigated disregard for organizational colleagues quickly backfires; high Machs who perform wanton CWBs and restrict their performance in observable ways are likely to suffer strong, swift punishments. Consequently, Machiavellian behavior tends to be sensitive to context in ways that prolong its adaptive utility (Jones & Mueller, 2022; Wilson, Near, & Miller, 1996). A growing body of conceptual and empirical research that is consistent with this notion points to moderating situational conditions that play an important role in the expression of Machiavellianism. Most of this research is at least loosely oriented in broad theories of person/​situation interactions.

Person/​Situation Interactions in the Workplace Person/​ situation theories articulate how environments can moderate the expression of personality traits and behaviors, yielding what Cortina et al. (2021) described as restricted variance interactions. In the workplace, these theories clarify how working conditions constrain or encourage the expression of personality traits that affect work behaviors. Two major theoretical perspectives dominate this area of research: SST and TAT (Judge & Zapata, 2015).

Situational Strength Theory SST is a perspective drawn from the situational strength paradigm (Meyer & Dalal, 2009; Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). “Strong situations” are contexts that suppress trait-​related behavioral variability because people interpret these situations similarly and have a common understanding about desirable and undesirable behavioral responses. For example, people with high impulsiveness or low conscientiousness might normally be expected to exhibit worse task performance than people with low impulsiveness or high conscientiousness, respectively. However, in the presence of substantial performance rewards, these behavioral differences in performance might shrink or disappear entirely because the strength of the reward overpowers the default behavioral responses that stem from these traits. Consistent with this example, SST posits that certain environmental variables are strong enough to suppress variability in behaviors regardless of the diversity of traits present in the affected group of people (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010). At the other end of the spectrum, some situations are weak to a degree that trait-​based variability in behavior can be maximally expressed (Meyer & Dalal, 2009).

144    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling Strong situations can take many forms. To help distinguish strong from weak situational variables, Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida (2010) articulated four key aspects of situational strength: clarity, consistency, constraints, and consequences. Clarity refers to a shared understanding of role expectations and responsibilities. Consistency involves routine predictability fostered by an absence of conflict between role responsibilities. Constraints refer to any situational feature that reduces decision-​making autonomy or independence. Lastly, consequences speak to the impacts of behavior on others, which may trigger rewards or punishments. Research testing the propositions of SST has recently documented that strong situations can also displace, rather than suppress entirely, variability in trait-​consistent behaviors (Meyer et al., 2014). Dalal et al. (2020) subsequently tested this idea by examining displaced variability in task performance. The first portion of their model demonstrated a classic strong situation effect: trait-​based variability in performance was restricted by a strong situation relevant to performance. However, people who were dispositionally predisposed to weak performance respond to this interaction with greater frustration and negative affect. That negative affect, in turn, triggered displaced behavior in the form of CWBs at a later measurement point, unless an equally strong situation existed that would also suppress variability in this second set of behaviors. Dalal and colleagues’ findings suggest an important, disturbing possibility: some maladaptive behaviors stemming from Dark Triad traits may be controllable with strong situations, but those same frustrated impulses might subsequently be redirected in different, harmful directions. Some conceptual research in the situation strength paradigm has focused instead on strong personalities (Dalal et al., 2015). Personality strength differs from one’s mere standing or score on the personality trait scale; where a trait score represents the direction and extremity of one’s standing on a personality construct or domain, personality strength reflects high consistency across situations and over time. For example, a person with high standing on extraversion is, on average, an outgoing person, but they might vary in the degree to which they are outgoing in different contexts. Conversely, a person with “strong” extraversion is consistently outgoing, showing both high standing and low variability in extraversion scores over time and context. Strong situations and strong personalities therefore exist in tension, with progressively stronger situations needed to overcome the influence of strong personality traits. This realization is important because it raises the possibility that some high Machs could also be “strong Machs” in the sense that their behavioral expressions are less responsive to situational variables than “weak Machs.” SST can be distinguished from other person/​ situation theories because strong situations are theorized to shape trait-​relevant variability in behavior for many traits (Judge & Zapata, 2015). To return to our earlier example, a strong situation created by compelling rewards might attenuate the effects of multiple traits, such as conscientiousness and impulsiveness, on task performance. That is, the strong situation operates on a variety of different dispositional responses, encouraging both the highly impulsive person to instead stay focused, and the minimally conscientious person to instead get

Moderating Machiavelli   145 organized. In the realm of the Dark Triad, the same strong situational variables might attenuate the effects of Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy on particular outcome variables (e.g., O’Boyle et al., 2012). Findings that speak to strong situations therefore are broadly helpful in shaping desired behavioral outcomes, but may not be tailored specifically to understanding and managing the tendencies of high-​Mach employees. To better understand interactions specific to Machiavellianism, we turn to TAT.

Trait Activation Theory TAT posits that traits are expressed in work behavior as responses to specific, trait-​relevant situational cues (Judge & Zapata, 2015; Tett & Burnett, 2003; Tett et al., 2013; Tett, Toich, & Ozkum, 2021). For example, a group norm for a team to eat lunch together may be a situational cue that activates, or “draws out,” behaviors relevant to extraversion, but that same situation may be a trait-​irrelevant cue for other traits, such as proactive personality. Sources of trait-​relevant cues can be grouped into task, social, and organizational categories (Tett et al., 2013). Task cues include those of everyday duties, such as needing to work around a broken cash register to process sales. Social cues are determined through interaction with coworkers, such as sitting through a downbeat team meeting. Finally, organizational cues are understood by studying organizational policies and culture, such as a strong safety climate. TAT also proposes that people seek out work environments that allow them to easily express their dominant personality traits because they derive intrinsic satisfaction from such trait expression (Tett & Burnett, 2003). As with strong situations, many kinds of variables can serve as trait-​activating situational cues. Tett and Burnett (2003) described a taxonomy of five types of situational cues, including job demands, distracters, constraints, releasers, and facilitators, to organize theory about situational features. Job demands are expectations of the job that activate traits in positively valued ways, whereas distracters activate traits that instead interfere with desired outcomes. Constraints are chronic circumstances that restrict the expression of traits, whereas releasers are discrete events that counteract constraints and allow traits to be expressed, at least temporarily. Lastly, facilitators enhance the effect of trait activation by making trait-​relevant cues that exist in an environment even more salient. Note that TAT allows for the same situational variable to play different roles in this taxonomy for different people. For example, background chatter in an open workspace might act as a dysfunctional distracter for one employee by acting as a cue for trait anger, leading to counterproductive outbursts of frustration. The same chatter might be a releaser for another employee who normally works alone at home, but who can now express her extraversion during a visit to the office. Critically, Tett and Burnett’s (2003) taxonomy highlights that trait activation is not always a functional process. Trait activation leads to organizationally desirable behavior only in situations where matching personality traits are valued on the job. Some situational cues can instead draw out negative characteristics of certain personality traits. Thus, TAT articulates

146    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling two key ways that personality might be weakly or negatively related to a desirable outcome, like performance. First, people may not find themselves in situations that cue their functional traits, like conscientiousness, which would otherwise facilitate performance. Second, and more relevant to our focus, people may instead be in situations that cue dysfunctional traits, like Machiavellianism, that detract from constructive performance. Recent theorizing supports the idea that TAT may have bearing on the expression of Machiavellianism. For example, Jones and Mueller (2022) leveraged TAT to help conceptually distinguish between Machiavellianism and psychopathy. They observed that both traits share an amoral and unethical orientation focused on self-​interest. Both are consequently activated in the presence of situational reward cues that signal opportunities to behave unethically. However, a critical difference between these traits is sensitivity to situational cues of risk: only high Machs will also attend to risk cues and restrict their unethical behavior in the presence of these cues that suggest likely sanctions. Risk cues are not trait-​relevant for psychopathy, and consequently they do not affect the unethical behavior of people high in psychopathy. In the sections that follow, we extend this reasoning to critically review the literature on situational moderators of Machiavellianism in the workplace. We elaborate on Jones and Mueller’s (2022) conceptual analysis to point out distinctions in theoretical arguments that speak more to SST than TAT. We further consider how these moderators align or not with aspects of situational strength (Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010) or types of trait-​activating cues (Tett & Burnett, 2003) identified by these theories.

Situational Moderators of Machiavellian Behavior Consistent with TAT and SST, many situational variables moderate the effects of Machiavellianism on workplace behavior. We organize the existing literature into three thematic categories to provide an organizing framework. First, normative standards are shared beliefs that shape employees’ understanding of what behaviors are expected, supported, and condemned in the workplace, which provide high Machs with an understanding of how their behaviors are likely to be appraised. Second, opportunity-​ enhancing situations encourage Machiavellian behavior by increasing rewards and lowering risks for enacting self-​interested, manipulative behaviors. Lastly, perceived threats represent sources of competition or danger that threaten the goals and security of high-​Mach employees.

Normative Standards Normative standards are situational factors that dictate what behaviors are normative and rewarded in the organization (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1991; Hackman,

Moderating Machiavelli   147 1992; Katz & Kahn, 1966). These standards are typically communicated to employees via different forms of leadership, which shape perceptions of climates or cultures in the organization. One consistent body of research points to the importance of ethical norms on mitigating Machiavellian behavior. For example, perceptions of ethical environments increase the likelihood that high Machs will whistle-​blow to report corruption in the organization (Dalton & Radtke, 2013). De Hoogh and colleagues (2021) took a more nuanced approach to contrast the moderating effects of instrumental climate (which is characterized by very low ethical concerns) and rule climate (which is characterized by higher ethical concerns) on the relationship between leader Machiavellianism and abusive supervision. As expected, instrumental climate strength strengthened this relationship, while rules climate strength weakened it. Norms communicated through ethical leadership exert similar effects. For example, high Machs exhibit lower levels of emotional manipulation, corruption, and knowledge hiding, and greater levels of affiliative OCBs and ethical work intentions, in the presence of high ethical leadership (Belschak, Den Hartog, & De Hoogh, 2018; Manara et al., 2020; Ruiz-​Palomino & Linuesa-​Langreo, 2018). Overall, it seems that ethical norms, particularly when actively expressed by leaders, buffer the expression of Machiavellian behaviors. These findings concerning ethical norms and leadership raise important questions about the theoretical mechanisms in play. If a willingness to behave in unethical and amoral ways is core to the definition of Machiavellianism, then why should ethical norms restrict the behaviors of high Machs? Ethical environments are complex and multidimensional (Booth & Schulz, 2004), and some possible answers are evident in studies that examine narrower ethical phenomena. For example, research in academic contexts documents that ethical social practices, such as ethics training, reduce acceptance of cheating among low Machs, but have no effect on cheating among high Machs (Bloodgood, Turnley, & Mudrack, 2010). “Toothless” ethical social practices are unlikely to shape the behavioral expression of high Machs. Instead, the effects of ethical norms are likely due only to the top-​down influence of ethical leaders, and especially due to the consequences for rewards and punishments that stem from the expectations that those leaders set. From this standpoint, much of the research on Machiavellianism and ethical norms is best understood through the lens of SST; these norms are intended to constrain any kind of unethical behavior motivated by maladaptive traits in general. Other kinds of normative standards can intensify the expression of Machiavellianism through trait activation. For example, high Machs who are led by high-​Mach managers report lower trust and greater stress at work (Belschak, Muhammad, & Den Hartog, 2018). This finding represents a clear example of trait activation, where leader Machiavellianism is a facilitating cue that activates and intensifies the distrustful orientation of the Machiavellian subordinate. Similarly, Djuurdjevic et al.(2019) found that perceptions of organizational politics, which job seekers find unattractive, exert a weaker negative effect on job pursuit intentions for high-​Mach (vs. low-​Mach) candidates. Despite the threats of a political workplace, high-​Mach candidates found

148    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling the organization relatively more attractive because of the possibility of Machiavellian trait expression embedded in this kind of environment (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Lastly, perceptions of an organization’s bottom-​line mentality—​a narrow focus on desired outcomes and neglect of competing concerns—​strengthened the indirect negative relationship between Machiavellianism and OCBs (Eissa et al., 2019). Strong bottom-​line mentalities communicate that OCBs are not valued contributions, which strengthens the tendency of high Machs to withhold these behaviors in the first place (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009).

Opportunity-​Enhancing Situations We define opportunities as situational factors that encourage Machiavellian behavior by lowering the risk of punishment and/​or increasing the likelihood of rewards. The most well-​supported finding in this area concerns the moderating effect of tight supervision on the behavior of high Machs. “Tight” work environments involve clear role and reward expectations, close supervision, and minimal latitude for improvisation or autonomy are minimized, whereas “loose” work environments involve greater ambiguity, less oversight and more opportunity to make autonomous decisions, even harmful ones, without drawing attention (Shultz, 1993). Several early studies of salespeople and marketers demonstrate that high Machs exhibit worse performance and lower satisfaction in tightly-​structured environments that constrain their behaviors (Gable, Hollon, & D’Angello, 1992; Shultz, 1993; Sparks, 1994). In a parallel finding, high Machs also report greater intrinsic work motivation under conditions of high autonomy (Belschak, Den Hartog, & Kalshoven, 2015). These findings concerning tightly structured work environments likely speak to a mix of SST-​and TAT-​related processes. From the broader standpoint of SST, tight structures restrict many types of trait-​based behavioral expressions. However, some aspects of these situations also specifically cue Machiavellianism. Loosely structured environments are attractive to high Machs and enable them to exercise their trait-​ relevant unethical behaviors in the pursuit of rewarded outcomes. Tight environments, in contrast, have firmer rules and more oversight, which usually constrain the expression of amoral and unethical behaviors that high Machs use to get ahead. When their dominant behavioral repertoire is suppressed, high Machs become less motivated and have fewer means to produce desired performance outcomes. While it might seem tempting to enable high Machs to produce high performance in loosely structured environments, related research focused on job autonomy highlights the potential costs of loose structure. For example, Whitaker & Dahling (2013) demonstrated that job autonomy strengthened the relationship between Machiavellianism and peer intimidation as a means to secure promotion. High Machs with more autonomy felt safer to threaten and bully coworkers to improve their relative standing in the eyes of supervisors. Further, in a recent study of CEOs, Sula (2022) demonstrated that CEO Machiavellianism was negatively related to objective measures

Moderating Machiavelli   149 of firm performance, and that this effect was stronger when the organization was loosely structured with greater managerial discretion. These studies point to the importance of considering a more complete set of outcome variables when considering how high Mach employees perform in tightly vs. loosely structured contexts. Another related body of moderator research focuses on position power or authority, which also grants employees more leeway to act without fear of reprisal. However, findings concerning power and authority are mixed. In one study, supervisor Machiavellianism related positively to abusive supervision only when the supervisor perceived that he or she had high position power (Wisse & Sleebos, 2016). In contrast, O’Boyle et al.’s (2012) meta-​analysis found no support for authority as a moderator of the relationships between Machiavellianism and work performance or CWB. However, O’Boyle et al. stressed that their moderator results were tentative due to a comparatively smaller number of samples in their analysis, and more research is needed to examine how authority shapes the expression of Machiavellianism. Lastly, some recent research in this category examines specific dimensions of the Machiavellianism trait, particularly amoral manipulation (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009; Dahling, Mehta, & Sehgal, 2022; Muris et al., 2017). For example, recent research shows that state-​level role ambiguity (experienced on a weekly basis) interacts with trait Machiavellian amoral manipulation to reduce task performance and courtesy in the workplace (Ma et al., 2022). However, more research is needed to better understand how particular dimensions of Machiavellianism are moderated by opportunity-​enhancing situations.

Perceived Threats Perceived threats are situational factors that activate Machiavellian behavior by threatening workplace standing or security in some respect. Threats elicit responses primarily by challenging the sense of power, status, or control that high Machs seek to maintain. Research in this category has examined the effects of situational threats such as organizational change events, work-​related resource constraints or limitations, and different forms of interpersonal conflict. Organizational change can pose a significant threat to the perceived security of employees, and several studies document that high Machs respond to these events with stronger reactions than other people. For example, high Machs show stronger reductions in engagement and higher turnover intentions than their low-​ Mach colleagues over the span of long-​term change processes (Belschak et al., 2020). In a related study, Thoroughgood, Lee, Sawyer, and Zagenczyk (2022) focused on the consequences of anticipating upcoming organizational changes. They applied TAT to study the relationship between Machiavellianism and social undermining of peers. Anticipated change acted as a situational facilitator that intensified this relationship by activating Machiavellianism, and co-​worker exchange quality as a constraint that defused and weakened it. This line of research demonstrates that change is a powerful,

150    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling trait-​relevant cue for high Machs that threatens their desire for status and control, and that elicits attitudinal disengagement and hostile behavioral reactions. Resource constraints and deficits pose another type of threat to high Machs by endangering their ability to perform their jobs and, potentially, pitting them against coworkers. Consistent with this idea, organizational resource constraints strengthen the relationships between Machiavellianism and both production deviance and co-​ worker social undermining (Castille, Kuyumcu, & Bennett, 2017). In a different line of research, Kuyumcu and Dahling (2014) found that organizational constraints activated Machiavellian career self-​interest, yielding better supervisor-​rated performance when constraints were high. They reasoned that situations with high constraints prevented many legitimate forms of task performance from succeeding, which advantaged illegitimate, amoral tactics employed by high Machs. Together, these two studies paint a clear picture of constraints as trait-​relevant cues that activate competitive and manipulative behaviors in high Machs, yielding greater CWBs and (potentially illegitimate) task performance. Finally, research points to different types of interpersonal conflicts or tensions that can act as threats to high Machs. One such form of conflict is a psychological contract breach, which occurs when people perceive that the organization has failed to follow through on an understood agreement. Psychological contract breaches register as forms of betrayal that may be particularly salient to high Machs. Consistent with this idea, Zagenczyk et al. (2013) found that the relationship between perceived psychological contract breach and organizational disidentification was stronger for high Machs than low Machs. High Machs responded to breaches in more absolute terms, severing their sense of organizational identity and reaffirming their inherent distrust of others. Other types of interpersonal threats may occur in the form of perceived alliances or cooperation among others that poses a threat to the interests of high Machs. For example, the abusive supervision of high-​Mach leaders is intensified when their subordinate team members have stronger interpersonal connections, or guanxi, with each other. High levels of guanxi among subordinate teammates is generally considered a desirable quality, but it creates the perception of a power threat to high-​Mach leaders (Feng et al., 2023). Cohesive groups, even if they lack an agenda, seem to be trait-​relevant cues for high Machs who see the potential for threat in their interactions.

Discussion In this chapter, we provided an overview of Machiavellianism with a focus on understanding how workplace situations restrict or enhance its expression. We grounded this analysis in SST and TAT, and we offered the most comprehensive review to date of person/​situation research on Machiavellianism in workplace settings. Our review identified several clusters of related findings that point toward promising mechanisms for managing high Machs, but it also raised many questions about the theoretical interpretation of this literature.

Moderating Machiavelli   151

Implications for Theory and Future Research The most direct realization of our review is the need to leverage greater theoretical precision when hypothesizing Mach/​situation interactions. Many studies introduce moderating variables with arguments grounded in construct definitions instead of a clear theoretical rationale. Others introduce arguments that blur the conceptual distinctions between the general interactionist perspective of SST and the specific interactionist perspective of TAT (Judge & Zapata, 2015). Even when specific theory is offered, it is frequently unclear what aspects of Machiavellianism and the situational cue in question are conceptually aligned. Improved theoretical precision is important because it helps clarify when results should be specific to Machiavellianism alone, versus Machiavellianism and/​or other maladaptive traits. Moreover, this distinction is critical to ongoing work that seeks to distinguish the Dark Triad traits from each other and from related maladaptive traits, like sadism or spite (e.g., Rodgers & Dahling, 2018). The nature and magnitude of the overlap between Machiavellianism and psychopathy is particularly contentious (Muris et al., 2017), but precise theorizing about situational moderator variables offers significant promise for clarifying the unique roles and impacts of each trait (Jones & Mueller, 2022). On a related point, our review highlights the value of theorizing about interactions in terms of specific dimensions or facets of Machiavellianism (Muris et al., 2017). Many measures of Machiavellianism are multidimensional, but researchers generally focus on the aggregate Machiavellianism score rather than disentangling what aspects of the trait are relevant to the situation in question (Dahling, Mehta, & Seghal, 2022). Dimension-​level theorizing (e.g., Ma et al., 2023) allows for more compelling hypothesis tests, particularly in the TAT framework where the relevance of the situational cue to the trait should be very clear. Third, we see value in disentangling the moderating effects of objective situational conditions versus subjective situational perceptions. High Machs’ beliefs may encourage them to interpret their environments in particular ways that diverge from objective reality or the perceptions of others. For example, Machiavellianism correlates with perceptions of the workplace climate as restricted and competitive, which likely reflects the fundamental, cynical beliefs held by Machs about the self-​interest and untrustworthiness of others (Jonason, Wee, & Li, 2015). This is an important concern because it raises the possibility that Machiavellianism can both cause, and have its other effects moderated by, some of the situational variables identified in this review. This notion raises other possible routes to intervene and manage high Machs by challenging their situational perceptions with alternative evidence. Fourth, we note a clear opportunity to move beyond studies of single moderators to more complex patterns of situational variables. For example, how might high Machs respond to resource constraints that emerge in situations that are tightly vs. loosely supervised? We suspect that threats that unfold within opportunity-​ enhancing situations may lead to particularly egregious behavior from high Machs. Conversely, threats that occur in strong ethical climates may trigger weaker responses. More complex studies that interpret higher-​level interactions (e.g., Thoroughgood et al., 2022),

152    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling relative weight analyses, or cluster/​ profile analysis of situational variables could clarify how Machiavellianism unfolds in complex environments where these variables co-​occur. Fifth, as hinted previously, the displacement proposition of SST (Dalal et al., 2020) raises serious questions about the management of Machiavellian behavior. Situational variables with powerful buffering effects on high Machs, such as ethical leadership, may simply displace Machiavellian behavioral responses in harmful directions that are less easily detected. From this perspective, strong situations that impact broader sets of behaviors, such as tight supervision, may introduce fewer risks than strong situations that are narrowly tailored to specific behaviors, such as an anti-​bullying policy. More research is needed to replicate and better understand this displacement process in SST, particularly in the context of the Dark Triad. Lastly, we suggest that the “strong personality” concept drawn from SST (Dalal et al., 2015) may be relevant to the ongoing debate about the relative distinctiveness of Machiavellianism and psychopathy (Jones & Mueller, 2022; Muris et al., 2017). One possible interpretation is that Machiavellianism represents the “weak” version, and psychopathy represents the “strong” version, of the same trait. Weak traits vary in their expression over time and context; that is, their expression is moderated by situational variables in ways that strong traits are not. Given arguments that Machiavellianism differs from psychopathy largely in terms of its unique sensitivity to risk cues (Jones & Mueller, 2022), a weak/​strong personality distinction may be a helpful conceptual framework for understanding how Machiavellianism and psychopathy co-​exist in the broader personality space.

Implications for Practice Our review offers clear guidance for managers who want to minimize the potential for Machiavellian behavior in the workplace. We focus on three broad, practical recommendations that align with past work on managing organizational deviance (e.g., Gutworth, Morton, & Dahling, 2013; Litzky, Eddleston, & Kidder, 2006). First, we urge leaders to be cautious about single-​criterion, bottom-​line reward systems (Eissa et al., 2019). High Machs are predisposed to focus on end goals to the detriment of moral and ethical means (Dahling, Whitaker, & Levy, 2009). Leaders who focus only on narrow performance outcomes, rather than performance means/​ behaviors and broader sets of outcomes, will craft workplace environments that attract high Machs and activate Machiavellian behavior. Conversely, leaders who set clear behavioral expectations and reward a broader set of outcomes, including well-​ being related outcomes, can elicit more constructive behaviors from even high-​Mach employees (Dahling, Kuyumcu, & Librizzi, 2012; Gutworth, Morton, & Dahling, 2013). Organizations can develop better reward systems in several ways, including providing group or organization-​level rewards, adopting gain-​sharing plans, rewarding servant leadership, and eliminating pay-​ for-​ performance systems that ignore how

Moderating Machiavelli   153 results are achieved (Dahling, Kuyumcu, & Librizzi, 2012). Consistent with TAT, these circumstances are extremely unlikely to attract and cue Machiavellian employees (Tett & Burnett, 2003). Second, we urge managers to lead ethically and treat ethical standards seriously. Ethical leadership exerts a powerful buffering effect on Machiavellian behavior (Belschak, Muhammad, & Den Hartog. 2018; Manara et al., 2020; Ruiz-​Palomino & Linuesa-​Langreo, 2018). Consistent with our first suggestion, we encourage managers to emphasize the importance of conforming specifically to ethical means in the pursuit of desired end goals. Research indicates that high Machs are sensitive to the reward structures embedded within ethical environments, and they will modify their behavior in response to these normative pressures. Finally, we recommend that managers carefully monitor and sanction Machiavellian behavior. Structured, tightly supervised environments may frustrate high-​ Mach employees, but they also constrain their worst behaviors. Structured, close monitoring can also help managers introduce anticipated challenges, such as organizational changes or resource constraints, carefully and with an eye toward managing strong reactions from high-​Mach employees who perceive these events as threatening. Tight supervision and detection of Machiavellian behavior may prove difficult for some managers lower in social or political skills (e.g., Whitaker & Dahling, 2013), which may be partly offset by drawing on the perspectives of multiple employee raters in the organization to minimize the impact of social manipulation.

Conclusion Situations play a critical role in the expression of Machiavellianism. While high Machs can cause significant harm in the workplace, careful thought about managing normative standards, opportunity-​enhancing structures, and perceived threats can create conditions that heavily buffer the expression of Machiavellian behaviors. Future research grounded in SST and TAT offers great potential for improving our ability to constrain and redirect Machiavellian behaviors in constructive directions to benefit individuals and organizations.

References Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. (2018a). Angels and demons: The effect of ethical leadership on Machiavellian employees’ work behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1082. Belschak, F. D., Den Hartog, D. N., & Kalshoven, K. (2015). Leading Machiavellians: How to translate Machiavellians’ selfishness into pro-​organizational behavior. Journal of Manage­ ment, 41(7), 1934–​1956.

154    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling Belschak, F. D., Jacobs, G., Giessner, S. R., Horton, K. E., & Bayerl, P. S. (2020). When the going gets tough: Employee reactions to large‐scale organizational change and the role of employee Machiavellianism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(9), 830–​850. Belschak, F. D., Muhammad, R. S., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2018). Birds of a feather can butt heads: When Machiavellian employees work with Machiavellian leaders. Journal of Business Ethics, 151(3), 613–​626. Bettenhausen, K. L., & Murnighan, J. K. (1991). The development of an intragroup norm and the effects of interpersonal and structural challenges. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 20–​35. Bloodgood, J. M., Turnley, W. H., & Mudrack, P. E. (2010). Ethics instruction and the perceived acceptability of cheating. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 23–​37. Booth, P., & Schulz, A. K. D. (2004). The impact of an ethical environment on managers’ project evaluation judgments under agency problem conditions. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(5–​6), 473–​488. Brownell, K. M., McMullen, J. S., & O’Boyle Jr, E. H. (2021). Fatal attraction: A systematic review and research agenda of the dark triad in entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(3), 106106. Castille, C. M., Kuyumcu, D., & Bennett, R. J. (2017). Prevailing to the peers’ detriment: Organizational constraints motivate Machiavellians to undermine their peers. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 29–​36. Christie, R. (1970). Why Machiavelli? In R. Christie & F. Geis (Eds.), Studies in Machiavellianism (pp. 1–​9). London, UK: Academic Press. Christie, R., & Geis, F. (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press. Cortina, J. M., Köhler, T., Keeler, K. R., & Pugh, S. D. (2021). Situation strength as a basis for interactions in psychological models. Psychological Methods, 27(2), 212–​233. Dahling, J. J., Kuyumcu, D., & Librizzi, E. (2012). Machiavellianism, unethical behavior, and well-​being in organizational life. In R. A. Giacalone and M. D. Promislo (Eds.), Handbook of unethical work behavior: Implications for individual well-​being (pp. 183–​194). New York: M.E. Sharpe, Inc. Dahling, J. J., Mehta, N., & Seghal, M. (2022). Reviewing the Machiavellian Personality Scale (MPS): Validity evidence and psychometric properties. In P. K. Jonason (Ed.), Shining light on the dark side of personality: Measurement properties and theoretical advances (pp. 105–​ 114). Boston, MA: Hogrefe. Dahling, J. J., Whitaker, B. G., & Levy, P. E. (2009). The development and validation of a new Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Management, 35(2), 219–​257. Dalal, R. S., Alaybek, B., Sheng, Z., Holland, S. J., & Tomassetti, A. J. (2020). Extending situational strength theory to account for situation-​outcome mismatch. Journal of Business and Psychology, 35(3), 273–​296. Dalal, R. S., Meyer, R. D., Bradshaw, R. P., Green, J. P., Kelly, E. D., & Zhu, M. (2015). Personality strength and situational influences on behavior: A conceptual review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 41(1), 261–​287. Dalton, D., & Radtke, R. R. (2013). The joint effects of Machiavellianism and ethical environment on whistle-​blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(1), 153–​172. De Hoogh, A. H., Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2021). Showing one’s true colors: Leader Machiavellianism, rules and instrumental climate, and abusive supervision. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42(7), 851–​866.

Moderating Machiavelli   155 Djurdjevic, E., Rosen, C. C., Conroy, S. A., Rawski, S. L., & Sosna, K. U. (2019). The influence of political climate on job pursuit intentions and the moderating effect of Machiavellianism. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 27(2), 180–​192. Eissa, G., Wyland, R., Lester, S. W., & Gupta, R. (2019). Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom‐line mentality, Machiavellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), 469–​489. Ellen III, B. P., Alexander, K. C., Mackey, J. D., McAllister, C. P., & Carson, J. E. (2021). Portrait of a workplace deviant: A clearer picture of the Big Five and Dark Triad as predictors of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(12), 1950–​1961. Feng, Z., Keng-​Highberger, F., Yam, K. C., Chen, X. P., & Li, H. (2023). Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: How and When Machiavellian Leaders Demonstrate Strategic Abuse. Journal of Business Ethics, 184(1), 255–​280. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(3), 199–​216. Gable, M., Hollon, C., & Dangello, F. (1992). Managerial structuring of work as a moderator of the Machiavellianism and job performance relationship. The Journal of Psychology, 126(3), 317–​325. Gutworth, M. B., Morton, D. M., & Dahling, J. J. (2013). Managing organizational deviance: Focusing on causes, not symptoms. In D. J. Svyantek & K. T. Mahoney (Eds.), Received wisdom, kernels of truth, and boundary conditions in organizational studies (pp. 153–​180). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc. Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 199–​267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Howard, M., & Zandt, E. (2020). The discriminant validity of honesty-​humility: A meta-​ analysis of the HEXACO, Big Five, and Dark Triad. Journal of Research in Personality, 87, 103982. 10.1016/​j.jrp.2020.103982. Jonason, P. K., Wee, S., & Li, N. P. (2015). Competition, autonomy, and prestige: Mechanisms through which the Dark Triad predict job satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 112–​116. Jones, D. N. (2016). The nature of Machiavellianism: Distinct patterns of misbehavior. In V. Zeigler-​Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology (pp. 87–​107). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Jones, D. N., & Mueller, S. M. (2022). Is Machiavellianism dead or dormant? The perils of researching a secretive construct. Journal of Business Ethics, 176, 535–​549. Judge, T. A., & Zapata, C. P. (2015). The person–​situation debate revisited: Effect of situation strength and trait activation on the validity of the Big Five personality traits in predicting job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1149–​1179. Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., Zagenczyk, T. J., Kiewitz, C., & Tang, R. L. (2010). In pursuit of power: The role of authoritarian leadership in the relationship between supervisors’ Machiavellianism and subordinates’ perceptions of abusive supervisory behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(4), 512–​519.

156    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling Kuyumcu, D., & Dahling, J. J. (2014). Constraints for some, opportunities for others? Interactive and indirect effects of Machiavellianism and organizational constraints on task performance ratings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2), 301–​310. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism in the Five-​ Factor Model and the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Individual differences, 38(7), 1571–​1582. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2014). The dark triad, the big five, and the HEXACO model. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 2–​5. Litzky, B. E., Eddleston, K. A., & Kidder, D. L. (2006). The good, the bad, and the misguided: How managers inadvertently encourage deviant behaviors. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20(1), 91–​103. Ma, G. X., Petrou, P., Bakker, A. B., & Born, M. P. (2023). Can job stressors activate amoral manipulation? A weekly diary study. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(2), 467–​482. Machiavelli, N. (1513/​1981). The Prince. (D. Donno, Trans.). New York: Bantam Books. Manara, M. U., Van Gils, S., Nübold, A., & Zijlstra, F. R. (2020). Corruption, fast or slow? Ethical leadership interacts with Machiavellianism to influence intuitive thinking and corruption. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 578419. McHoskey, J. W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals and social interest: A self-​determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 267–​283. Meyer, R. D., & Dalal, R. S. (2009). Situational strength as a means of conceptualizing context. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(1), 99–​102. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36(1), 121–​140. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., José, I. J., Hermida, R., Chen, T. R., Vega, R. P., ... & Khare, V. P. (2014). Measuring job-​related situational strength and assessing its interactive effects with personality on voluntary work behavior. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1010–​1041. Michels, M. (2022). General intelligence and the dark triad: A meta-​analysis. Journal of Individual Differences, 43(1), 35–​46. Michels, M., & Schulze, R. (2021). Emotional intelligence and the dark triad: A meta-​analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 180, 110961. Monaghan, C., Bizumic, B., & Sellbom, M. (2016). The role of Machiavellian views and tactics in psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 72–​81. Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-​analysis and critical review of the literature on the dark triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–​204. O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-​analysis of the Dark Triad and work behavior: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 557–​579. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D., Banks, G. C., & Story, P. A. (2013). A meta-​analytic review of the Dark Triad–​intelligence connection. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 789–​794. O’Boyle, E. H., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., Story, P. A., & White, C. D. (2015). A meta‐analytic test of redundancy and relative importance of the dark triad and five‐factor model of personality. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 644–​664. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–​563.

Moderating Machiavelli   157 Rodgers, C., & Dahling, J. J. (2018). Self-​regulatory correlates of spitefulness. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 257–​259. Ruiz-​Palomino, P., & Linuesa-​Langreo, J. (2018). Implications of person–​situation interactions for Machiavellians’ unethical tendencies: The buffering role of managerial ethical leadership. European Management Journal, 36(2), 243–​253. Serenko, A., & Choo, C. W. (2020). Knowledge sabotage as an extreme form of counterproductive knowledge behavior: the role of narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and competitiveness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(9), 2299–​2325. Shultz, C. J. (1993). Situational and dispositional predictors of performance: A test of the hypothesized Machiavellianism structure interaction among sales persons. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(6), 478–​498. Sparks, J. R. (1994). Machiavellianism and personal success in marketing: The moderating role of latitude for improvisation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(4), 393–​400. Sula, K. (2022). CEO Machiavellianism and firm performance: The moderating role of managerial discretion (Master’s thesis, Memorial University of Newfoundland). Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-​based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 500–​517. Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-​ situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 397–​423. Tett, R. P., Simonet, D. V., Walser, B., & Brown, C. (2013). Trait activation theory. In N. Christiansen & R. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 71–​ 100). London: Routledge. Tett, R. P., Toich, M. J., & Ozkum, S. B. (2021). Trait activation theory: A review of the literature and applications to five lines of personality dynamics research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8, 199–​233. Thoroughgood, C. N., Lee, K., Sawyer, K. B., & Zagenczyk, T. J. (2022). Change is coming, time to undermine? Examining the countervailing effects of anticipated organizational change and coworker exchange quality on the relationship between Machiavellianism and social undermining at work. Journal of Business Ethics, 181, 701–​720. Webster, B. D., & Smith, M. B. (2019). The dark triad and organizational citizenship behaviors: The moderating role of high involvement management climate. Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(5), 621–​635. Whitaker, B. G., & Dahling, J. J. (2013). The influence of autonomy and supervisor political skill on the use and consequences of peer intimidation in organizations. Human Performance, 26(5), 353–​373. Wilson, D. S., Near, D., & Miller, R. R. (1996). Machiavellianism: A synthesis of the evolutionary and psychological literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 285–​299. Wisse, B., & Sleebos, E. (2016). When the dark ones gain power: Perceived position power strengthens the effect of supervisor Machiavellianism on abusive supervision in work teams. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 122–​126. Włodarska, K. A., Zyskowska, E., Terebus, M. K., & Rogoza, R. (2021). The Dark Triad and BIS/​ BAS: A meta-​analysis. Current Psychology, 40(11), 5349–​5357. Zagenczyk, T. J., Cruz, K. S., Woodard, A. M., Walker, J. C., Few, W. T., Kiazad, K., & Raja, M. (2013). The moderating effect of Machiavellianism on the psychological contract

158    D.R. Hemsey and J.J. Dahling breach–​organizational identification/​disidentification relationships. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(3), 287–​299. Zagenczyk, T. J., Restubog, S. L. D., Kiewitz, C., Kiazad, K., & Tang, R. L. (2014). Psychological contracts as a mediator between Machiavellianism and employee citizenship and deviant behaviors. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1098–​1122. Zettler, I., & Solga, M. (2013). Not enough of a “dark” trait? Linking Machiavellianism to job performance. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 545–​554.

chapter 11

Prev ention Fo c u s as a n Overl o oked B e ne fac tor An Investigation into Its Role as an Antecedent of Management Team Accountability Aybars Tuncdogan, Frans van den Bosch, and Henk W. Volberda

Regulatory focus, a psychological theory of goal attainment, has started to attract substantial interest from management scholars (e.g., Johnson et al., 2017; Mount & Baer, 2022; Qian et al., 2023; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015; Tuncdogan et al., 2017; Vriend et al., 2023). According to this theory, prevention focus (“self-​regulating in terms of obligations and security, or the satisfying of minimal goals,” Plaks & Higgins, 2000: 965) and promotion focus (“self-​regulating in terms of accomplishments and aspirations or the achieving of maximal goals,” Plaks & Higgins, 2000: 965) represent two distinct self-​regulatory components. As a primordial survival mechanism of the human being (Friedman & Förster, 2001), regulatory focus has an influence on a wide range of behaviors and inclinations. More specifically for the purposes of this chapter, the concern of the prevention focus dimension with “obligations and security” make it interesting as a potential antecedent of accountability (i.e., the expectation of being held responsible for an obligation—​Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Two meta-​analysis studies have examined the work-​related outcomes of regulatory focus (Gorman et al., 2012; Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012). They looked at effects of the two dimensions of regulatory focus on a large range of variables pertaining to job performance of an individual. According to these studies, promotion focus had numerous distinctive benefits. However, the only distinctive advantages that prevention focus offered over promotion focus were that prevention focus made individuals more likely to follow safety procedures and less likely to look for a new job. The findings of studies conducted after these meta-​analyses are also similar in that either the benefits

160    A. Tuncdogan, F. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda of prevention focus relate to safety performance (e.g., Qian et al., 2023) or the effects of promotion focus are generally found to be more desirable (e.g., Ahmadi et al., 2017; Hamstra, Rietzschel, & Groeneveld, 2015; Tuncdogan et al., 2017). For instance, Hamstra and colleagues (2015) have shown that promotion focus positively (and prevention focus negatively) predicts sales success. Likewise, Vriend et al. (2023) found that promotion focus positively predicts employee creativity and performance, whereas prevention focus has no effect on creativity and negative effect on performance. Therefore, our knowledge of the benefits of prevention focus in workplace contexts is very limited. However, according to the wider literature on regulatory focus, both dimensions of regulatory focus offer distinct benefits for survival, and depending on the circumstances either or both foci could be advantageous (e.g., Friedman & Förster, 2001; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015). This raises the question of whether studies of organizational outcomes of regulatory focus have somewhat overlooked the potentially positive effects of prevention focus. This chapter has at least two contributions. First, in line with the gap deliberated above, the main contribution of this chapter is taking a step in demonstrating the distinct beneficial effects of prevention focus on an important organizational construct and thus encouraging a shift in the emphasis of the field (as indicated by the last two meta-​ analyses) from the workplace advantages of a promotion focus to a balanced consideration of both types of regulatory foci. Accountability has been considered as a core construct within the organizational psychology literature, especially due to its beneficial effects on numerous other constructs (e.g., Bach, van Thiel, Hammerschmid, & Steiner, 2017; Bernardin et al., 2016; Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Rohn, Austin, & Lutrey, 2003; Tetlock & Henik, 2015). As a result, showing the positive effects of general managers’ prevention focus on management team accountability makes prevention focus an important selection metric to be considered for the purposes of management selection. Second, we have limited knowledge of the managerial antecedents of accountability. In that context, this chapter contributes to existing knowledge by identifying general managers’ prevention focus as an antecedent of management team accountability. This chapter’s further implications are reviewed in the Discussion section.

Theory and Hypotheses According to the regulatory focus theory, avoiding pain and approaching pleasure are two fundamentally distinct ways of goal attainment, with different antecedents and outcomes (Higgins, 1997; Johnson et al., 2017). Certainly, all individuals try both to avoid pain and approach pleasure, but different individuals concentrate on these two elements to different extents. The regulatory focus of an individual stems from his or her upbringing and is relatively stable (Keller, 2008), although contextual elements can also shift an individual’s regulatory focus temporarily (e.g., Wallace, Johnson, & Frazier, 2009). Prevention focus is the “avoiding pain” component of regulatory focus, and

Prevention Focus as an Overlooked Benefactor    161 “refers to self-​regulating in terms of obligations and security, or the satisfying of minimal goals” (Plaks & Higgins, 2000: 965). Accordingly, when individuals are pursuing a goal in a prevention-​focused manner, they concentrate on avoiding an undesired state and satisficing, also known as “avoidance strategic means” (Higgins et al., 2001). On the other hand, promotion focus is the “approaching pleasure” component of regulatory focus, and “refers to self-​regulating in terms of accomplishments and aspirations or the achieving of maximal goals” (Higgins et al., 2001). In a promotion focus, the individual acts eagerly and tries to “win,” whereas in a prevention focus he or she acts vigilantly and tries “not to lose.” These two mechanisms have different cognitive, emotional and behavioral influences (i.e., Johnson et al., 2017; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015; Tuncdogan et al., 2017). The general manager (GM) (also known as the CEO, especially in large firms) is the topmost member of the organizational hierarchy, and one of the GM’s roles is to chair the management team (MT), which in the case of large firms, may also be called the top management team (TMT). We therefore expect the goal attainment strategies of the GM to have an effect on the inclinations and expectations of MT members, such as MT accountability: A term popularized by Philip Tetlock, accountability is “the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’s beliefs, feelings, and actions to others” (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999: 255). It has a range of effects on decision-​ making tendencies and social information processing (e.g., Peloza, White, & Shang, 2013; Scholten et al., 2007) and has various applications in organizational behavior and in conceptually related fields, such as economics, marketing, and public administration. As we noted before, the primary concerns of prevention focus are obligations and security (Plaks & Higgins, 2000), and thus, those with this kind of focus will be intent on minimizing mistakes and threats in the environment and maintaining the status quo (Liberman et al., 1999). Prevention-​focused individuals try to detect subtle threats at an early stage and prevent them, which requires them to focus on the environmental details (Förster & Higgins, 2005). In order to keep abreast of the subtle changes in the environment that have the potential to cause problems, prevention-​focused GMs regularly check and closely monitor everything within their own context, particularly the actions of MT members. This is because the members of the MT wield tremendous amounts of power (e.g., Floyd & Lane, 2000: 166), and their mistakes or other misbehaviors can greatly harm the organization. Furthermore, because prevention-​focused individuals are vigilant by definition (e.g., Higgins, 1997; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015), they may also be more likely to be suspicious of others’ intentions and to be looking out for hidden agenda (e.g., Darke & Ritchie, 2007), especially once they observe some transgressions or unexpected behavior. This may further compel prevention-​ focused GMs to regularly monitor and question members of their MTs. In short, because they are already being regularly monitored and questioned about their actions, we posit that MT members who are led by a prevention-​focused GM would be more likely to expect questioning to occur. Moreover, the GM’s actions are likely to set an example to the group (e.g., Hogg & Terry, 2000). In particular, when there is a highly prevention-​ focused GM who always emphasizes rules and norms and behaves according to these

162    A. Tuncdogan, F. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda principles on a ritual basis—​even when these rules appear meaningless at times—​it is more likely that members of the MT will expect to be challenged about their actions when they overstep these boundaries. Hypothesis 1: Prevention focus of the general manager is likely to have a positive effect on management team accountability.

Method We posted letters to 4250 Dutch companies, asking them to take part in our electronic survey. We received responses from 526 of these companies, 228 of these were completed by the GMs themselves, in line with the requirements of our model. We then removed the companies that were very small (i.e., five full-​time employees or less), as in very small companies there may be little distinction between the GM and an employee. Three more companies were removed because they were extremely large outliers (they were approximately one order of magnitude larger than the remaining largest and they were more than four standard deviations larger than the mean of the rest). Finally, list-​wise deletion of missing values brought us to a net sample size of 145 GMs. These numbers are comparable to those in other studies that have collected data from GMs or other corporate elites (e.g., Heyden et al., 2013; Hmieleski & Baron, 2008). To understand the extent of the potential non-​response bias, we compared the characteristics of the organizations that responded early and late (e.g., Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Pulles, Ellegaard, & Veldman, 2023). Of the four organizational variables included in this study –​organizational size, organizational age, decentralization, and MT accountability—​only organizational age showed some level of difference with respect to early and late respondents (t-​test; p < 0.05), meaning that older firms were relatively less likely to respond. For this reason, we consider the extent of non-​response bias to be limited in this study.

Scales and Measurement Regulatory focus (promotion and prevention). To examine the regulatory focus of the GM, we used 12 items (six for each dimension) from the “Regulatory Focus at Work” scale, developed by Wallace, Johnson, and Frasier (2009). In the PCA, one item from both dimensions cross-​loaded (> 0.32) while also loading less than 0.5 on their corresponding dimensions and were removed. Promotion and prevention foci showed high levels of reliability (α =​0.83 and α =​0.81). MT accountability. MT accountability is defined as the extent to which the members of the organization’s MT to expect to be questioned about their actions (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999: 255; Tetlock, 1983). Based on previous literature (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999;

Prevention Focus as an Overlooked Benefactor    163 Tetlock, 1983), we developed a three-​item scale to measure the MT accountability (Table 11.1), as to our knowledge there were no existing scales designed to measure MT accountability. To check for the content validity of this scale, we asked a panel of ten experts to fill the content validity index (CVI) for the scale. The scale showed a very high level of content validity (0.93). Likewise, in the survey with GMs, the MT accountability scale showed a very high level of reliability (α =​0.86). Other checks of validity will be discussed later within the section on validity and reliability. Control variables. We used five different control variables to eliminate as far as possible any alternative explanations. Three of these control variables were at the level of the organization. Because the companies in our sample were diverse, in line with previous research we included organizational size and age into our model. Furthermore, we also used a scale based on Breaugh (1985) as a measure of decentralization. Like age and size, decentralization is a powerful and comprehensive variable, and can be used to control for various kinds of differences between organizations. We also controlled for GMs’ age Table 11.1 Scales and items of the model General Manager’s Promotion Focus I focus on: -​Accomplishing a lot of work -​Work activities that allow me to get ahead at work -​My work accomplishments -​Getting a lot of work finished in a short amount of time -​Work activities that allow me to get ahead at work a -​How many job tasks I can complete General Manager’s Prevention Focus I focus on: -​Following rules and regulations at work a -​Completing work tasks correctly -​Doing my duty at work -​On the details of my work -​Fulfilling my work obligations -​My work responsibilities Management Team Accountability -​Our management team (MT) feels itself accountable for the obtained results -​The MT-​members feel themselves accountable for the manner in which business is conducted -​The MT is accountable for the functioning of the organization a

These items were omitted from further analysis for the reasons explained in the text

164    A. Tuncdogan, F. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda and education, which are known to be associated with several relevant variables, such as cognitive capabilities, social generation and experience. Validity and reliability. We conducted various validity and reliability checks on the scales used in this study. The Cronbach’s α scores of the scales were higher than.80. Three distinct factors emerged in the PCA with Eigenvalue 1 and above, demonstrating discriminant validity. We also conducted CFA analyses comparing three-​factor, two-​factor, and one-​factor models (Tuncdogan et al., 2017). Again, the three-​factor model showed the greatest fit to the data (χ2 =​115.44; d.f. =​62; χ2 /​d.f. =​1.86; TLI =​0.91; CFI =​0.93; RMSEA =​0.078; AIC =​5564.44; BIC =​5649.95; SABIC =​5558.20), again suggesting that the factors are distinct from each other. Furthermore, to provide further convergent/​nomological validity to the self-​developed MT accountability scale, we examined whether MT accountability had a positive correlation with the level of formalization in the organization, as our theory and the wider literature on accountability suggest (Lerner, Goldberg, & Tetlock, 1998; Scholten et al., 2007). MT accountability was positively correlated with the level of formalization in the organization (r =​0.27; p < 0.01), a result suggesting that the accountability scale was behaving in line with our conceptual expectations. Also, in line with a previous theory (e.g., Kark and van Dijk, 2007), prevention focus was positively correlated with formalization (r =​0.34, p < 0.001). Next, to provide further evidence to the discriminant validity of the accountability scale, we went on to show that the regulatory focus and accountability scales are distinct not only from each other but from another theoretically and empirically related construct (formalization). In particular, we observed that compared with the CFA model with four factors (χ2 =​208.44; d.f. =​113; χ2 /​d.f. =​1.84; CFI =​0.91; TLI =​0.90; AIC =​7159.31; BIC =​7277.26; SABIC =​7150.70), the models consisting of fewer factors suggested a significantly worse fit. We followed up on this analysis with a chi-​square difference test (Segars, 1997), where a correlated CFA model and an uncorrelated one are compared, and a significant result is strong evidence of distinctiveness. The chi-​square distinctiveness test was indeed significant (χ2 Diff =​58.63; p < 0.001), and this result provided further divergent validity to the accountability scale. Moreover, we conducted two single-​factor tests against possible common method bias that can result due to having a single-​respondent. If there were common method bias, one factor would emerge and would explain most of the variance. Our principal components analysis suggested that there were multiple factors and the largest factor constituted less than half of the variance (30.8%). Likewise, the CFA model with one-​ factor showed a very bad fit to the data (χ2 =​492.71; d.f. =​65; χ2 /​d.f. =​7.58; CFI =​0.42; TLI =​0.31; AIC =​5935.70; BIC =​6012.37; SABIC =​5930.11), suggesting that common method bias was not a major issue in our study.

Results The correlation matrix preliminarily showed the relationships in our dataset to be in line with our expectations. For instance, there was a positive correlation between GM’s

Prevention Focus as an Overlooked Benefactor    165 prevention focus and MT accountability (r =​0.37; p < 0.001), whereas the correlation between GM’s promotion focus and MT accountability was not significant (see Table 11.2). The relationships among the control variables were also in line with prior literature. For example, there was a negative correlation between the age of the GM and decentralization (r =​-​0.20; p < 0.05). Likewise, there was a positive relationship between firm age and size (r =​0.29; p < 0.001). Finally, in line with a number of prior studies conducted within organizational contexts (e.g., Grant & Higgins, 2003; Higgins et al., 2001; Wallace, Johnson, & Frazier, 2009), the correlation we found between promotion and prevention focus of the individual was positive (r =​0.27; p < 0.01). All in all, the behavior of the dataset resembled that of the datasets in prior studies, showing that our dataset is typical and ordinary. We tested our hypothesis via bootstrapped OLS regression models (1,000 samples—​ Table 11.3). The highest VIF value we encountered was 1.17, which was below the cut-​ off point of 10 and suggests that multicollinearity was not a major issue in this study. The effect of GM prevention focus (Model 3: b =​0.33; p < 0.001), but not of promotion focus (Model 3: b =​0.03; p =​0.57) on MT accountability was positive and significant, supporting hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the R2 and adjusted-​R2 values of Model 3 were substantially better than that of other models. More importantly, the addition of GM promotion focus had minimum effect on the explanatory power of the model beyond the addition of control variables (Δ adjusted-​R2 =​0.01), whereas the addition of prevention focus had a substantial increase beyond the addition of control variables plus GM promotion focus (Δ adjusted-​R2 =​0.13). Cross-​validation for predictive validity. Next, we used 10-​ fold cross-​ validation to examine the predictive validity of our model. The procedure was first to divide the sample up randomly into smaller sub-​samples. Then one sub-​sample was removed from the group, and using the rest of the sub-​samples, the values in the removed sub-​ sample were estimated. This sequence was then repeated 10 times, until each sample

Table 11.2 Correlation matrix M

S

1

1. GM Prevention Focus

5.56

.93

2. GM Promotion Focus

4.36

1.25

2

3

6.13

.82

4. Organizational Age

46.52

40.00

-​.02

-​.14

-​.11

158.94 396.28

6. GM Age 7. Education: Bachelor or above 8. Decentralization

5

6

7

.27**

3. MT Accountability 5. Organizational Size

4

.37***

.12

-​.05

-​.04

.10

.29***

50.49

7.95

-​.08

-​.23**

.05

.18*

.15

.86

.35

-​.16

-​.14

.12

-​.03

.09

-​.07

3.65

1.23

-​.08

.01

-​.11

-​.20*

-​.09

-​.20*

Note: N =​145; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001

.08

166    A. Tuncdogan, F. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda Table 11.3 Bootstrapped OLS regressions on MT accountability Model 1

Model 2

GM Prevention Focus

Model 3 .33***

GM Promotion Focus Organizational Age

-​.00

.09

.03

-​.00

-​.00

Organizational Size

.00*

.00

.00*

GM Age

.01

.01

.01

Education: Bachelor or above

.26

.31

.41

-​.09

-​.09

-​.07

Decentralization R2

.063

.08

.21

Adjusted R2

.03

.04

.17

1.88

2.01

5.21***

F-​value

Notes: N =​145; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 1000 Bootstrap Samples; Unstandardized bootstrapped coefficients reported

was estimated using the rest of the samples. Ten-​fold cross-​validation suggested that the accuracy of the model in predicting MT Accountability was quite high (mean squared error =​0.584). In sum, the results of the cross-​validation analyses suggest that the model has high predictive validity. Multiple imputation against the biases of list-​wise deletion. In the method section, we indicated that list-​wise deletion had decreased our sample size to 145. Actually, 179 of the managers had filled in a number of items. That is, 4.89% of missing values caused 19% of the dataset to be removed, which is known to cause certain biases. Following the rule of thumb, we used 10 imputations, receiving 10 different datasets where the missing values were imputed differently and repeated our regressions. Different scenarios as well as the pooled results were in parallel with the prior results.

Discussion In this chapter, we have examined the relationship between GMs’ regulatory focus and MT accountability. The findings of this chapter have implications for research and practice. First, the results of this chapter suggest that while GMs’ prevention focus has a positive effect on MT accountability, the effects of promotion focus are not significant. From the perspective of the emerging regulatory focus sub-​literature within management (e.g., Johnson et al., 2017; Mount & Baer, 2022; Qian et al., 2023; Tuncdogan & Dogan, 2020; Tuncdogan, van den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015; Tuncdogan et al., 2017; Vriend et al., 2023), this is the key finding of the current study because it supports our

Prevention Focus as an Overlooked Benefactor    167 main proposition that prevention focus offers distinctive benefits to organizations. In other words, this result allows us to empirically illustrate our case that the relative lack of information in the current literature on the benefits of prevention focus in organizational settings is not because this psychological mechanism is useless, but that the research until now has not yet fully discovered its benefits. Second, from the perspective of accountability research (e.g., Bach et al., 2017; Bernardin et al., 2016; Tetlock & Henik, 2015), the importance of this chapter is the identification of a relatively stable managerial characteristic that may increase MT accountability. In other words, this result suggests that when the goal is to choose a GM who will increase or restore the accountability of the MT, using prevention focus in selecting managers has advantages. This insight is important because research on the stable managerial antecedents of MT accountability scarce. Finally, to our knowledge, there is no scale in the literature for measuring the accountability of management teams, which limits empirical development in that area. We have addressed this problem by developing a brief scale of MT accountability.

Limitations and Future Research This chapter has limitations that also present potential areas for future research. First, it is important to mention that this was just a starting point for showing the positive effects of prevention focus within organizational settings. That is, the construct we considered was only an illustrative example of the positive effects of prevention focus, and our main goal was pointing out a large unexplored research space and taking a step in that direction. Second, we have developed a brief scale for measuring MT accountability and conducted several checks for construct validity, convergent validity, divergent validity, nomological validity, and predictive validity. That said, this is a new scale and it will be beneficial for future studies to further refine it. Finally, we used a powerful and valuable type of data (only GM—​the chair of the management team) and employed several checks against potential biases and robustness issues. Still, the study was based on single-​respondent data, and therefore, definitively establishing the relationships we have hypothesized in this chapter requires further steps to be taken. Future studies can complement and extend the findings of this chapter by means of longitudinal case studies with a small number of organizations (e.g., four or five organizations), but with multi-​level data from each organization.

Conclusion This chapter examined general managers’ prevention focus as a potential antecedent of management team accountability. The study builds on the notion that both types of regulatory focus (i.e., promotion and prevention) offer distinct benefits for performance

168    A. Tuncdogan, F. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda and survival. The findings contribute to the relatively limited existing knowledge of the benefits of prevention focus in organizational contexts.

References Ahmadi, S., Khanagha, S., Berchicci, L., & Jansen, J. (2017). Are managers motivated to explore in the face of a new technological change? The role of regulatory focus, fit, and complexity of decision‐making. Journal of Management Studies, 54, 209–​237. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ joms.12257 Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of marketing research, 14(3), 396–​402. Bach, T., van Thiel, S., Hammerschmid, G., & Steiner, R. (2017). Administrative tradition and management reforms: a comparison of agency chief executive accountability in four Continental Rechtsstaat countries. Public Management Review, 19(6), 765–​784. https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​14719​037.2016.1210​205 Bernardin, J., Thomason, S., Buckley, R., & Kane, J. S. (2016). Rater rating‐level bias and accuracy in performance appraisals: The impact of rater personality, performance management competence, and rater accountability. Human Resource Management, 55(2), 321–​340. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​hrm.21678 Breaugh, J. (1985). The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations, 38, 551–​570. https://​ doi.org/​10.1177%2F001​8726​7850​3800​604 Darke, P., & Ritchie, R. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, Defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 114–​127. https://​doi.org/​10.1509/​ jmkr.44.1.114 Floyd, S., & Lane, P. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25,154–​177. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​ amr.2000.2791​608 Förster, J., & Higgins, E. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16, 631–​636. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1467-​9280.2005.01586.x Friedman, R., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on Creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001–​1013. https://​doi.org/​10.1037//​ 0022-​3514.81.6.1001 Gorman, C. et al. (2012). A meta-​analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 160–​172. https://​ doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jvb.2011.07.005 Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2003). Optimism, promotion pride, and prevention pride as predictors of quality of life. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(12), 1521–​1532. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6720​3256​919 Hamstra, M., Rietzschel, E., & Groeneveld, D. (2015). To go or not to go for the sell. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14,109–​112. https://​doi.org/​10.1027/​1866-​5888/​a000​134 Heyden, M., van Doorn, S., Reimer, M., van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2013). Perceived environmental dynamism, relative competitive performance, and top management team heterogeneity. Organizational Studies, 34, 1327–​1356. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F0​1708​4061​ 2470​229 Higgins, E. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–​1300. http://​psyc​ net.apa.org/​doi/​10.1037/​0003-​066X.52.12.1280

Prevention Focus as an Overlooked Benefactor    169 Higgins, E. et al. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–​23. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ejsp.27 Hmieleski, K., & Baron, R. (2008). When does entrepreneurial self7hologyive histories of success: Promperformance?. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 57–​72. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1002/​sej.42 Hogg, M., & Terry, D. (2000). Social identity and self-​categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–​140. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​ amr.2000.2791​606 Johnson, R., King, D., Lin, S., Scott, B., Walker, E., & Wang, M. (2017). Regulatory focus trickle-​down: How leader regulatory focus and behavior shape follower regulatory focus. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 140, 29–​45. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.obhdp.2017.03.002 Kark, R., & van Dijk, D. (2007). Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review, 32, 500–​528. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​amr.2007.24351​846 Keller, J. (2008). On the development of regulatory focus: The role of parenting styles. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 354–​364. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​ejsp.460 Lanaj, K., Chang, C., & Johnson, R. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-​related outcomes: A review and meta-​analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998–​1034. http://​psyc​net.apa.org/​doi/​ 10.1037/​a0027​723 Lerner, J., Goldberg, J., & Tetlock, P. (1998). Sober second thought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianism on attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 563–​574. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6729​8246​001 Lerner, J., & Tetlock, P. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–​275. https://​doi.org/​10.1037//​0033-​2909.125.2.255 Liberman, N., Idson, L., Camacho, C., & Higgins, E. (1999). Promotion and prevention choices between stability and change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1135–​1145. https://​doi.org/​10.1037//​0022-​3514.77.6.1135 Mount, M. P., & Baer, M. (2022). CEOs’ regulatory focus and risk-​taking when firms perform below and above the bar. Journal of Management, 48(7), 1980–​2008. Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-​free: The role of self-​accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104–​119. Plaks, J., & Higgins, E. (2000). Pragmatic use of stereotyping in teamwork: Social loafing and compensation as a function of inferred partner–​situation fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 962–​974. https://​doi.org/​10.1037//​0022-​3514.79.6.962 Pulles, N. J., Ellegaard, C., & Veldman, J. (2023). The interplay between supplier-​specific investments and supplier dependence: do two pluses make a minus?. Journal of Management, 49(4), 1430–​1459. Qian, C., Balaji, P., Crilly, D., & Liu, Y. (2023). Better safe than sorry: CEO regulatory focus and workplace safety. Journal of Management, 01492063221146754. Rohn, D., Austin, J., & Lutrey, S. M. (2003). Using feedback and performance accountability to decrease cash register shortages. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(1), 33–​46. https://​doi.org/​10.1300/​J075v2​2n01​_​03 Scholten, L., Van Knippenberg, D., Nijstad, B., & De Dreu, C. (2007). Motivated information processing and group decision-​making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 539–​ 552. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jesp.2006.05.010

170    A. Tuncdogan, F. van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda Segars, A. (1997). Assessing the unidimensionality of measurement: A paradigm and illustration within the context of information systems research. Omega, 25, 107–​121. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​S0305-​0483(96)00051-​5 Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(1), 74. Tetlock, P., & Henik, E. (2015). Accountability. Wiley encyclopedia of management, 1–​3. https://​ doi.org/​10.1002/​978111​8785​317.weo​m110​108 Tuncdogan, A., Boon, A., Mom, T., van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2017). Management teams’ regulatory foci and their units’ exploratory innovation: The mediating role of coordination mechanisms. Long Range Planning, 50, 621–​635. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.lrp.2016.11.002 Tuncdogan, A., & Dogan, I. C. (2020). Managers’ regulatory focus, temporal focus and exploration–​exploitation activities. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 35(1), 13–​27. Tuncdogan, A., van den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2015). Regulatory focus as a psychological micro-​foundation of leaders’ exploration and exploitation activities. Leadership Quarterly, 26, 838–​850. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lea​qua.2015.06.004 Vriend, T., Hamstra, M. R., Said, R., Janssen, O., Jordan, J., & Nijstad, B. A. (2023). Regulatory focus theory: Disentangling goals and strategies. Applied Psychology, 72(1), 231–​267. Wallace, J., Johnson, P., & Frazier, M. (2009). An examination of the factorial, construct, and predictive validity and utility of the regulatory focus at work scale. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 805–​831. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​job.572

Pa rt I I I

B IOL O G IC A L /​ P H YSIOL O G IC A L TRAITS AND I N DI V I DUA L DI F F E R E N C E S I N ORG A N I Z AT IONA L C ON T E X T S

chapter 12

Sex Differe nc e s i n Vo c ational I nt e re sts An Analysis of Cohorts Julie Aitken Schermer and Kristi Baerg MacDonald

Differences in vocational interests between men and women may be a reflection of individual difference variables, such as intelligence, personality, or genetics, but they also may reflect societal opportunities. Vocational interests are an individual’s preference for certain careers or career activities. Career opportunities, especially for women, have increased historically, such as women working in munitions factories in the UK during World War II to a recent announcement from Russia that women would be allowed to drive subway trains (CNN, January 4, 2021). Following, this chapter examines if sex differences in vocational interests have changed over time using the Jackson Vocational Interest Survey (JVIS; Jackson, 1977; 2000) and the Jackson Career Explorer (JCE; Schermer, MacDougall, & Jackson, 2012). The chapter first describes some of the general findings surrounding differences in vocational interests reported between men and women. We then outline the vocational interest measure created by Douglas N. Jackson, the JVIS, and using the values reported in the first and second JVIS test manuals, examine if the pattern of sex differences has changed across 23 years. The chapter will conclude by describing recent results found with the JVIS dimensions, which are also measured with the JCE (Schermer, MacDougall, & Jackson, 2012). Specifically, the relationship between the JVIS/​JCE dimensions with age are reported to explore generational differences, which may help to explain sex differences. Finally, using a large sample of JCE respondents, sex differences are examined for younger versus older participants to examine if generational changes in the expression of sex differences are present with the vocational interests. The chapter concludes with an overview of Social Role Theory (Eagly, 1983) as a possible mechanism for understanding sex differences in vocational interests.

174    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests There is a long history of reports detailing sex differences in vocational interests. For example, Finch and Odoroff (1939) examined the vocational interests of junior and senior high-​school boys and girls. Consistently, boys from both junior and senior levels had higher interest scores in areas including engineering, chemistry, farming, physics, psychology, personnel management, purchasing, and sales. Junior and senior girls consistently had higher interest scores in the areas of architecture, art, law, advertising, real estate sales, life insurance sales, ministry, and accountancy. For only a few vocational interests did the sex differences change with age. Junior girls had higher interests in being a physician and a journalist but senior boys scored higher than senior girls. Possibly these differences in interest scores reflected generational/​maturational changes or these changes could be due to socialization influences. Berdie (1943) reported that men interested in the skilled trades and engineering fields, interests which typically show a sex difference with men scoring higher in these areas, were more masculine than those not interested in these areas. Stewart (1976) stated that the sex differences in vocational interests were so robust and consistent, that those creating interest scales could use the sex differences as a means of validating their measures. For example, Lippa (2010) created a “gender-​related occupational preferences” (p. 623) scale consisting of how much individuals would like to engage in certain careers with items such as car mechanic and builder reflecting male preferences and costume designer and dance teacher reflecting female preferences. Using responses to this scale, Lippa (2010) reported that across 53 countries, sex differences were relatively stable across the countries and surprisingly did not correlate significantly with indicators such as empowerment, income, and life expectancy. Many have outlined the sex differences in vocational interests by explaining the difference due to a person versus things dimension. This social versus physical environment preference was examined in a novel manner by McIntyre and Graziano (2019) who asked their participants to photograph important elements of their life. Individuals who preferred people, not surprisingly photographed people, and those who preferred things, photographed buildings, vehicles, etc. Unfortunately, McIntyre and Graziano (2019) did not discuss sex in their study as it would have added to our knowledge if men photographed more things and if women photographed more people. For example, across three studies, Lippa (1998) reported a robust relationship between sex and the person-​thing orientation such that women scored higher on the person-​orientation and men scored higher on the thing orientation. In a meta-​analysis of longitudinal studies, Hoff and colleagues (2018) found a similar relationship of girls/​women and person-​ oriented interests and boys/​men and things-​oriented interests. In their influential meta-​analysis, Su, Rounds, and Armstrong (2009) examined technical manuals for 47 interest measures. Consistently, men scored higher on

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    175 measures of engineering, science, and mathematics interests. Hansen (1988) asked the research question of whether or not sex differences have changed over time. Using the Strong Vocational Interest Blank (SVIB; Campbell, 2002; Campbell & Borgen, 1999; Strong & Campbell, 1966), Hansen (1988) tested if sex differences in interests, based on test manuals, had changed over 50 years. The results suggested that the sex differences in interests had remained stable over the time difference. Also, using test manuals, this chapter examines if sex differences in vocational interests have changed between the two publications of the JVIS (Jackson, 1977, 2000).

Jackson’s Vocational Interests The JVIS (Jackson, 1977, 2000) was constructed to be similar to the SVIB (Campbell & Borgen, 1999), but cover more general vocational interest dimensions (Jackson & Williams, 1975) in order to aid in the vocational guidance of high school and college students, assist out of school adults making career decisions, be used in selection settings/​employee testing, and for research purposes (Jackson, 1977; Thomas, 1985). The construction of the JVIS was rigorous (Jackson, 1977; Jackson & Williams, 1975; Murphy & Davidshofer, 1991) and distinguishes between occupational work roles and work styles. Work roles reflect engaging in the behaviors of particular vocations and the degree to which the respondent enjoys partaking in the duties pertaining to certain jobs. In contrast, work styles refer to an individual’s preferences for working in certain environments. Work styles are not job specific but encompass multiple vocational fields. The JVIS assesses 34 dimensions. Work roles include: dominant leadership, finance, business, sales, supervision, human resources management, law, professional advising, mathematics, physical science, engineering, life science, social science, personal services, teaching, social service, elementary education, creative arts, performing arts, author-​journalism, technical writing, skilled trades, family activity, office work, adventure, nature-​agriculture, and medical service. Work styles assessed include: job security, stamina, accountability, academic achievement, independence, planfulness, and interpersonal confidence. In investigations with the JVIS, the results of using the JVIS in research are quite favorable. For example, Locklin and Marks (unpublished internal report, as cited by Jackson, 1977: 81–​84) administered the JVIS to 1,054 men and 845 women entering university and found that JVIS scores correctly classified approximately 60% of students in terms of their entrance to specific colleges. Zarrella and Schnerger (1990) reviewed seven vocational interest tests and reported that the JVIS was comparable in terms of homogeneity and stability to other rationally developed scales, such as the basic scales of the Strong-​Campbell Interest Inventory or SCII (Strong & Campbell, 1981) and was superior to scales based on the contrasted groups method, such as the Strong Vocational Interest Blank or SVIB (Strong & Campbell, 1966), where items were selected not based

176    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald on content, but because responses to the items differed for groups of test takers based on their careers, such as a difference in scale means between artists and mechanics. In a review of the JVIS, Davidshofer (1985) concluded that it is a good measure in terms of construction but suggested that the format of the inventory (forced choice of paired items) make it difficult for a person who finds both options appealing. For example, if an individual likes both options or dislikes both options equally, they are still forced to choose an option. Thomas (1985) reviewed the JVIS and reported that the scale takes too long to administer (45 minutes to an hour) and claims that the manual is too complex when describing the statistics used to construct the scale. Following these criticisms, as well as the fact that ipsative measures are not recommended for use in multivariate statistics, such as factor analysis, Schermer and colleagues (Schermer, 2012; Schermer & MacDougall, 2011; Schermer & Vernon, 2008; Schermer, MacDougall, & Jackson, 2012) designed and created a modified version of the JVIS which was later titled the Jackson Career Explorer (JCE; Schermer, MacDougall, & Jackson, 2012).

The Jackson Career Explorer The JCE was created to address the two measurement issues about the JVIS; the length as well as the forced choice response format. To create a shorter version of the JVIS (Jackson, 1977, 2000) while still maintaining the 34 dimensions measured by the JVIS, the five items with the highest item-​scale total correlations for each of the 34 scales were selected, reducing the total number of items to 170. To change the forced choice (ipsative) paired item format, the JCE items are presented individually and respondents choose to what degree they would enjoy participating in the activity using a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) Likert-​type response scale, and as reported by Schermer and Vernon (2008) and by Schermer and MacDougall (2011), the internal consistency (reliability) of these five-​item scales is strong, with average coefficient alpha values of approximately.80. In addition to being internally consistent, Schermer (2019) recently verified that the JCE items do not correlate significantly with social desirability responding, adding to the research value of the measure. In assessing the validity of the JCE, convergent validity has been found with the 15 basic interest scales from the Career Directions Inventory, such as strong positive correlations between the JCE office work scale and the CDI clerical scale, and between the JCE engineering scale and the CDI industrial art scale (Schermer & MacDougall, 2011). Schermer (2012) also demonstrated convergent validity between the JCE and Holland’s (1985) Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI). In particular, the VPI realistic scale had high positive (greater than.40) correlations with the JCE engineering, nature-​ agriculture, and skilled trades scales. Strong positive correlations were found between the VPI investigative scale and the physical science, engineering, and life science JCE scales. The VPI artistic scale correlated strongly with the JCE creative arts, performing arts, and author-​journalism scales. In summary, the JCE has been found to be a sound

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    177 measure of vocational interests and capitalizes on the rigorous item selection procedures utilized in the creation of the JVIS (Schermer, MacDougall, & Jackson, 2012). Using both the JVIS and the JCE, the following sections review the reported sex differences with the 34 scales and then examine if the differences between men and women have changed over time (with the JVIS) and are there differences in the magnitude of vocational interest sex differences for those younger, versus older, test takers of the JCE.

Sex Differences in the Jackson Interest Dimensions When comparing the JCE sex differences with the JVIS sex differences, the effect sizes are similar and the differences fall in the same direction. As stated by Schermer (2018), sex differences in vocational interests should be examined at both the differences in variance (F-​tests) and the mean differences (t-​tests) levels. Variance tests assess the degree to which men and women differ in the range of test scores. If women score higher in variance than men do on a particular vocational interest, this result would suggest that greater individual differences would be expected for that interest for women. For example, in an investigation of the VPI (Holland, 1985), Schermer (2012) found that women were more variable on the social and self-​control scales, whereas men were found to be more variable on the realistic and investigative scales. Paessler (2015) examined the variability of vocational interests also using the Holland model and reported that men varied more in realistic and enterprising interests whereas women varied more in artistic and conventional interests. In an investigation assessing the JCE, Schermer (2012) examined sex differences based on responses from 213 men and 315 women who were adult volunteers. In that study, men were found to be more variable on the mathematics, physical science, engineering, stamina, accountability, finance, and planfulness scales. What these results suggest is that women score more similar to each other on these measures, whereas men have greater individual differences for their sex. For example, the interest in mathematics expressed by men has a greater range in scale scores than for women. In contrast, women were found to be more variable on the creative arts, performing arts, and office work scales. With respect to mean differences, based on independent group t-​tests, men scored significantly higher on the mathematics, engineering, adventure, skilled trades, dominant leadership, finance, law, and independence scales. Women scored significantly higher on the creative arts, personal service, family activity, job security, accountability, teaching, social service, elementary education, office work, academic achievement, planfulness, and interpersonal confidence scales. This pattern of sex differences is similar to the sex differences reported by Schermer and MacDougall (2011) in an independent sample of participants who completed the JCE, as well as reflect sex differences typically found with other vocational interest measures (Carless,

178    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald 1999; Costa, McCrae, & Holland, 1984; Harris et al., 2006; Low et al., 2005; Rottinghaus, Betz, & Borgen, 2003; Su, Rounds, & Armstrong, 2009). Listed in Table 12.1 are the sex differences found for 531 men and 1243 women with an average age of 32.32 years (SD =​17.14) and ranging from as young as 14 to as old as 92. Similar to the results reviewed above, men were significantly more variable on the interest scales measuring mathematics, physical science, engineering, life science, skilled trades, finance, law, and the work style scale of accountability. Women were Table 12.1 Descriptive statistics, sex difference tests, and correlations with age and conventionality for the Jackson Career Explorer Scales. F

T

r with age

Men Mean (SD)

Women Mean (SD)

(N =​531)

(N =​1243)

Creative Arts

10.58 (5.14)

11.36 (5.67)

7.45

-​7.50*

-​.18*

Performing Arts

10.24 (5.26)

11.23 (5.66)

5.31

-​1.67

-​.07

Author-​Journalism

11.65 (5.48)

12.35 (6.02)

8.02

-​1.92

-​.07

Technical Writing

9.94 (4.47)

9.66 (4.39)

.16

.74

-​.10

Mathematics

10.51 (5.44)

8.37 (4.74)

20.04*

6.66*

-​.12*

Physical Science

10.89 (5.58)

7.89 (4.28)

55.65*

7.72*

-​.13*

Engineering

10.40 (4.94)

6.96 (3.25)

143.54*

12.63*

-​.06

Life Science

10.39 (4.98)

9.95 (4.41)

12.67*

1.48

-​.14*

Social Science

13.68 (5.07)

14.90 (5.17)

.54

-​3.85*

-​.12*

Personal Service

10.95 (4.42)

14.53 (4.56)

.72

-​12.89*

.02

Teaching

14.11 (5.13)

17.28 (5.23)

.34

-​9.92*

-​.01

Social Service

10.87 (4.74)

15.47 (5.50)

10.92*

-​14.92*

-​.04

Elementary Education

11.86 (5.59)

17.14 (5.83)

.43

-​14.92*

.10

Adventure

16.61 (4.99)

13.25 (5.34)

4.68

10.48*

-​.38*

Nature-​Agriculture

11.08 (4.71)

11.02 (4.67)

.06

.16

-​.05

Medical Service

10.34 (5.31)

10.78 (6.36)

15.92*

-​.93

-​.03

Skilled Trades

8.62 (3.70)

8.00 (3.03)

15.70*

2.04

.01

Family Activity

13.51 (4.66)

18.82 (4.30)

7.61

-​19.54*

.07

8.17 (3.77)

10.80 (5.01)

53.20*

-​10.09*

.12*

Dominant Leadership

14.37 (4.67)

12.50 (4.62)

.04

4.79*

-​.16*

Finance

12.63 (6.12)

9.16 (4.85)

68.36*

9.86*

-​.21*

Business

11.14 (4.62)

10.61 (4.35)

2.79

1.95

-​.04

8.64 (3.64)

8.10 (3.48)

1.78

2.48*

-​.10

Supervision

14.29 (4.58)

13.13 (4.72)

.30

2.94

-​.06

HR Management

15.29 (4.85)

13.93 (4.92)

.44

3.27*

-​.05

Office Work

Sales

Law

12.31 (5.21)

10.12 (4.62)

14.00*

7.06*

-​.06

Professional Advising

13.29 (4.88)

11.46 (4.69)

.79

4.49*

-​.12*

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    179 Table 12.1  Continued F

T

r with age

.28

-​1.10

-​.06

4.55

-​5.22*

Men Mean (SD)

Women Mean (SD)

(N =​531)

(N =​1243)

Job Security

17.75 (3.58)

18.10 (3.83)

Stamina

19.50 (3.63)

20.61 (3.37)

Accountability

21.13 (3.53)

22.71 (2.81)

19.20*

-​8.29*

Academic Achievement

18.77 (3.76)

19.07 (4.00)

.84

-​.89

-​.01

Independence

18.09 (3.94)

17.85 (4.09)

.97

.97

.01

Planfulness

20.54 (3.39)

21.58 (3.29)

1.41

-​3.71*

Interpersonal Confidence

20.20 (3.28)

20.85 (3.19)

.99

-​2.39

.16* .14*

.16* -​.03

Notes: Minimum score is 5 and maximum score is 25 for each scale score; F =​Levene’s F; if Levene’s F was significant, the pooled variance estimated t-​test was calculated; significant differences are in bold font. * p < .001; two-​tailed

significantly more variable on the social service, medical service, and office work interest scales. With respect to mean scale score differences, men scored significantly higher on the mathematics, physical science, engineering, adventure, dominant leadership, finance, sales, law, and professional advising interest scales. Women scored significantly higher on the creative arts, social science, personal service, teaching, social service, elementary education, family activity, and office work, interest scales as well as the work styles of stamina, accountability, and planfulness.

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests across Time Periods Similar to the use of test manuals as conducted by Hansen (1988), the sex differences for the JVIS scales over time was examined for this chapter by computing the effect size of the sex differences for the normative values for men and women reported for the first edition of the JVIS in 1977 with the second edition of the JVIS published in 1999. Specifically, the reported means for the scales in the manuals were used to compute Hedge’s g-​statistic as an estimate of the effect size of the difference between men and women. Presented in Figure 12.1 below are the plotted effect sizes for the two publication years with the values reported in Table 12.2. The results suggest that, similar to the findings reported by Hansen (1988) with the Strong Vocational Interest Blank manual

180    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald

Figure 12.1  Sex differences for 1977 and 1999 Note: the difference is calculated as male-​female. Positive scores reflect a higher score for men and negative scores reflect a higher score for women.

values, the sex differences appear to be consistent with only a few minor differences found between the 1977 and 1999 results.

Correlations between Vocational Interests and Age Vocational interest measures can be utilized in a wide variety of settings and with diverse populations, ranging from adolescent students thinking of possible career paths to older adults contemplating a change in occupation. In general, vocational interests have been found to be fairly stable over adulthood (Conley, 1984; Hansen & Stocco, 1980; Hansen & Swanson, 1983; Hoff et al., 2018; Strong, 1951; Su, Rounds, & Armstrong, 2009; Swanson & Hansen, 1988), suggesting stability within individuals. Significant correlations found between vocational interests with age may reflect generational differences in career interests and can be found when the sample’s age range is large. Costa, Fozard, and McCrae (1997), reported a small positive correlation between age and interests in business, suggesting that older individuals scored higher in their business interest measure. Holland, Johnston, Asama, and Polys (1993) found negative correlations between age and scores on the enterprising, conventional, and high-​status scales. These results suggest that the younger participants scored higher on these scales.

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    181 Table 12.2 Difference score effect sizes for men versus women for the Jackson Vocational Interest Survey (JVIS) from the 1977 and 1999 manuals. 1977

1999

Creative Arts

-​0.37

-​0.25

Performing Arts

-​0.13

0.01

Author-​Journalism

-​0.37

-​0.35

Technical Writing

-​0.30

-​0.24

Mathematics

0.55

0.55

Physical Science

0.76

0.71

Engineering

1.13

1.24

Life Science

0.18

0.24

Social Science

-​0.33

-​0.08

Personal Service

-​0.70

-​0.59

Teaching

-​0.52

-​0.74

Social Service

-​1.08

-​1.23

Elementary Education

-​1.05

-​1.04

Adventure

0.56

0.62

Nature-​Agriculture

0.13

0.31

Medical Service

0.12

0.14

Skilled Trades

0.36

0.54

Family Activity

-​0.56

-​0.44

Office Work

-​0.28

-​0.22

Dominant Leadership

0.55

0.61

Finance

0.47

0.38

Business

0.02

-​0.18

-​0.09

-​0.07

0.20

0.01

-​0.04

-​0.16

0.07

-​0.07

Sales Supervision Human Relations Management Law Professional Advising

-​0.06

-​0.16

Job Security

0.19

0.08

Stamina

0.34

0.23

Accountability

0.14

0.02

-​0.08

-​0.20

0.06

-​0.08

Academic Achievement Independence Planfulness

-​0.01

-​0.14

Interpersonal Confidence

-​0.39

-​0.38

182    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald Schermer (2012) reported a significant positive correlation between age and the artistic scale from Holland’s Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI; Holland, 1985). Also for the VPI scales, significant negative correlations were reported by Schermer (2012) with the conventional, masculine-​feminine, and status scales. In an investigation with the JCE with a sample ranging in age from 18 years to 72 years old, Schermer (2012) reported significant positive correlations between age and the family activity, stamina, accountability, office work, independence, and planfulness scales. Significant negative correlations were found between age and the performing arts, life science, social science, adventure, sales, and author-​journalism scales. In Table 12.1, similar results are reported in this chapter with older individuals scoring higher in an interest in office work and the work styles of stamina, accountability, and planfulness. If these correlations are explained by societal/​generational factors, then vocational counsellors can use this information to help in their advising of clients. For example, home-​care nursing careers may be more attractive to individuals who are older than would a career in the performing arts. To further examine if there are age/​cohort effects on the sex differences in vocational interests, we took JCE responses from 1,653 individuals ranging in age from 14 years old to 92 years old. Using a median split of 20 years, two groups were formed based on age. The younger group consisted of 436 men and 525 women, all at or under the age of 20 years. The older group consisted of 160 men and 535 women who were 21 years or older. The sex differences for each of the JCE scales were calculated and Hedge’s g was used as an estimate of the effect size of the sex difference. The effect sizes are plotted in Figure 12.2 below. Of interest, the younger group (solid line) was consistent across the dimensions with respect to sex difference effect sizes. In contrast, the older sample had much stronger sex difference effect sizes, which was very noticeable in the mathematics, physical science, and engineering, all with males scoring higher, and for the personal service, elementary education, and family activity with women scoring higher. What these results, although preliminary, suggest is that the effect sizes for sex differences is becoming less pronounced in the younger generation. One possible reason for this finding is that the majority of the younger sample were university students. These students may be more open to alternative career options or have less sex-​typed vocational interests. If this effect is only present in younger, mainly university-​attending students, then this research area requires further investigation, for example with high-​ school students of various levels of academic ability. Also examined were the variability (F-​values) and mean differences (t-​values) for the JCE scales between the younger and older groups with the values reported below in Table 12.3. The younger group was significantly more variable on the scales measuring an interest in the skilled trades, family activity, finance, business, sales, law, and professional advising, as well as the work styles of stamina, accountability, planfulness, and interpersonal confidence. The older group was significantly more variable on the interest scales for performing arts, author-​journalism, technical writing, adventure, medical service, and office work. With respect to mean differences, the younger group scored significantly higher on the mathematics, physical science, engineering, adventure, skilled trades, finance,

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    183 1.5 1 0.5 0 –0.5

Author-Journalism Technical Writing Mathematics Physical Science Engineering Life Science Social Science Personal Service Teaching Social Science Elementary Education Adventure Nature-Agriculture Medical Service Skilled Trades Family Activity Office Work Dominant Leadership Finance Business Sales Supervision Human Relations Management Law Professional Advising Job Security Stamina Accountability Academic Achievement Independence Planfulness interpersonal Confidence

Creative Arts Performing Arts

–1 –1.5

20 years and younger

21 years and older

Figure 12.2  Sex difference effect sizes for the younger and older JCE respondents Note: the difference is calculated as male-​female. Positive scores reflect a higher score for men and negative scores reflect a higher score for women.

Table 12.3 Descriptive statistics and age group difference tests for the Jackson Career Explorer Scales Younger Mean (SD)

Older Mean (SD)a

(N =​961)

(N =​695)

Creative Arts

12.66 (5.41)

14.12 (5.64)

Performing Arts

11.42 (5.06)

11.11 (5.49)

11.06*

1.18

Author-​Journalism

11.64 (5.27)

12.61 (6.07)

35.32*

-​3.37*

Technical Writing

F

T

2.19

-​5.32*

9.81 (3.78)

9.77 (4.31)

12.48*

0.20

10.12 (4.85)

9.07 (5.16)

1.30

4.21*

Physical Science

9.38 (4.54)

8.77 (4.89)

4.46

2.60*

Engineering

9.06 (4.00)

7.91 (4.26)

0.21

5.63*

Mathematics

Life Science

9.77 (4.38)

10.48 (4.67)

3.08

-​3.16*

Social Science

14.74 (5.02)

15.25 (5.12)

1.19

-​2.02

Personal Service

13.05 (4.88)

14.17 (4.58)

4.27

-​4.75*

Teaching

14.63 (5.09)

17.67 (4.96)

0.31

-​12.11*

Social Service

12.98 (5.27)

14.89 (5.55)

2.86

-​7.11*

Elementary Education

12.83 (5.79)

17.32 (5.49)

3.44

-​15.90*

Adventure

15.73 (4.97)

13.58 (5.41)

14.60*

8.25*

9.93 (4.19)

10.97 (4.66)

9.14

-​4.76*

Nature-​Agriculture

(continued)

184    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald Table 12.3  Continued Younger Mean (SD)

Older Mean (SD)a

(N =​961)

(N =​695)

F

T

Medical Service

9.60 (5.02)

10.70 (6.07)

57.17*

-​3.92*

Skilled Trades

8.84 (3.69)

8.22 (3.25)

12.60*

3.59*

Family Activity

15.69 (5.19)

18.62 (4.20)

41.76*

-​12.72*

9.93 (4.40)

10.84 (4.97)

16.03*

-​3.85*

Dominant Leadership

14.90 (4.49)

12.83 (4.78)

3.28

9.04*

Finance

14.62 (6.40)

9.73 (5.22)

72.71*

17.10*

Business

12.89 (5.01)

11.10 (4.35)

27.30*

7.74*

Sales

10.87 (4.42)

8.06 (3.45)

62.39*

14.49*

Supervision

14.94 (4.81)

13.41 (4.81)

0.01

6.36*

HR Management

15.24 (4.90)

14.33 (4.99)

0.09

3.69*

Law

13.19 (5.38)

10.67 (4.87)

12.28*

9.92*

Professional Advising

14.58 (5.24)

11.75 (4.78)

10.66*

11.39*

Job Security

17.58 (3.99)

18.08 (3.86)

2.37

-​2.55*

Stamina

19.82 (3.78)

21.05 (3.06)

36.56*

-​7.23*

Accountability

21.61 (3.70)

23.07 (2.43)

107.39*

-​9.63*

Academic Achievement

18.04 (4.26)

19.21 (3.89)

6.67

-​5.71*

Independence

17.97 (4.04)

18.67 (3.76)

3.51

-​3.56*

Planfulness

20.33 (3.99)

21.52 (3.24)

33.20*

-​6.71*

Interpersonal Confidence

20.02 (4.09)

20.67 (3.22)

51.21*

-​3.62*

Office Work

Notes: Minimum score is 5 and maximum score is 25 for each scale score; F =​Levene’s F; if Levene’s F was significant, the pooled variance estimated t-​test was calculated. aYounger =​20 years or less; Older =​21 and older. * p < .001; two-​tailed

business, sales, supervision, HR management, law, and professional advising interest scales. In contrast, the older group scored significantly higher on the creative arts, author-​journalism, life science, personal service, teaching, social service, elementary education, nature-​agriculture, medical service, family activity, and office work interest scales. In addition, the older group scored significantly higher than the younger group on all the work style scales (job security, stamina, accountability, academic achievement, independence, planfulness, and interpersonal confidence). These results do suggest that there are generational differences in the vocational interest and work style responses.

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    185

Social Role Theory Social Role Theory states that men and women are exposed to different socialization due to the way that sex or gender is defined in their society (Eagly, 1983). As children, one’s treatment by influential adults, like parents and teachers, will help to shape opportunities and behaviors. These influencing individuals may lead to the development of sex differences in traits and abilities (Amin et al., 2018; Eagly, 1983; Kägesten et al., 2016; Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974) beyond what may be accounted for by genetic or biological factors. As children receive gendered socialization, they learn to act in ways that are consistent with that socialization, known as role congruity (Eagly, 1983). Women are expected to exhibit communal traits (i.e. caregiving, concern for others) and men are expected to exhibit agentic traits (i.e. assertiveness; Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Individuals are motivated toward role congruity as it becomes part of their self-​concept, which influences many of the sex differences that can be seen in the vocational interest literature (Diekman & Eagly, 2008; Evans & Diekman, 2009). The differences found on the JCE and other vocational measures are consistent with Social Role Theory and role congruity; the career interest areas rated higher by women are more focused on caregiving and social abilities. Areas that men rated higher are more oriented toward agentic characteristics such as attaining status and leadership. In the decades following the introduction of Social Role Theory, there have been cultural changes related to sex in the workforce. The wage gap has decreased and the representation of men and women in education has evened out, with women often outnumbering men in higher education (Buchmann, DiPrete, & McDaniel, 2008); however, many stereotypes, both in traits and occupations for men and women, have not actually changed (Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016). Koenig and Eagly (2014) conclude that although there has been a change in women’s roles in the past 50 years, the sex-​role stereotype for women remains focused on their communal traits and social abilities, and for men on agentic traits. Eagly and colleagues (2020) reported that some gender, or sex-​based, stereotypes have changed, such as the increase in competency in women, but the stereotype of women as communion-​oriented has increased. They contend that women in the workforce are seen in service, education, and healthcare roles, which has further linked them to communion, where previously they were seen as caregivers at home (Eagly et al., 2020). Social role stereotypes significantly impact career preferences and appear to pervade changes in education and opportunity and possibly culture. Specifically, Ott-​Holland et al. (2013) examined sex differences in vocational interests across 20 countries. Also measured was gender egalitarianism in the country samples. Gender egalitarianism is defined as the degree of gender, or sex-​based, stereotyping in a society. When gender egalitarianism is high, then there is less of a societal influence in how men and women are treated stereotypically. Surprisingly, the researchers reported that for those countries with higher levels of gender egalitarianism, there were stronger sex differences in

186    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald vocational interests, suggesting that if men and women are treated more equally society, there may be greater differences between them in their vocational interests.

Future Directions Evidence presented in this chapter joins previous research in depicting stable sex differences in vocational interests over time, despite many changes in the workforce related to gender or sex-​based norms in occupations. Going forward, these findings serve as a foundation to investigate the societal and developmental origins of these differences, and how these differences can be changed or integrated to improve opportunities in the workforce regardless of biological sex. There has been a push in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) to attract more women to pursue related occupations given the historic imbalance between men and women; however, as can be seen in this chapter and other works (e.g. Cardador, Damian, & Wiegan, 2021; Su, Rounds, & Armstrong, 2009), it is more likely to be men who express an interest in behaviors related to these careers. Rather than try to convince adolescent girls and young women to pursue a career which may not be their primary interest, research on how interests develop and what can influence the trajectory would be beneficial. For example, Cheryan and colleagues (2015) found pervasive stereotypes about adolescent girls’ views on computer engineering. When they presented a broader picture of people working in that field and the job activities, girls’ interest in computer engineering increased. It would also be interesting to examine whether jobs that cross interests may achieve more balance in the distribution of men and women (e.g., a job that would include components of engineering and education). In addition to changing stereotypes, other research has begun looking at providing early positive experiences in STEM fields as a means of increasing interest in those fields (Master et al., 2017). These studies are promising, and future studies should examine how to translate these one-​time interventions into long-​term effects. Finally, the reverse imbalance, such as the lack of men in caring professions and education, has garnered substantially less attention in both research and policy, but is a crucial component to overall equality between men and women (Block et al., 2019; Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015). These topics will be valuable for future research, building on the findings that some vocational interest areas have persistent sex differences.

Conclusions Being aware of sex differences in vocational interests is an important piece of information for career counsellors, but they should also be cognizant of evoking possible stereotypes. For example, although women score higher than men in creative arts, based

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    187 on mean differences, women are also more variable in creative arts scores. If a guidance counsellor focuses on the mean difference only, they may not appreciate the range of scores found within samples of women for an interest in creative arts and suggesting that a woman consider a career in creative arts solely based on the client’s sex, would be limiting (and possibly frustrating) for the client. In conclusion, vocational interests represent meaningful individual differences that reflect preferences for certain work-​related behaviors and working environments. Understanding an individual’s interests provides information to assist people seeking career guidance. As demonstrated above, vocational interests differ for men and women and these differences tend to be stable, although recent data with the JCE do suggest that the strength of the difference may be weaker in younger, versus older people.

References Amin, A., Kågesten, A., Adebayo, E., & Chandra-​Mouli, V. (2018). Addressing gender socialization and masculinity norms among adolescent boys: policy and programmatic implications. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(3), S3–​S5. Berdie, R. F. (1943). Factors associated with vocational interests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 257–​277. Block, K., Croft, A., de Souza, L., & Schmader, T. (2019). Do people care if men don’t care about caring? The asymmetry in support for changing gender roles. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 112–​131. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jesp.2019.03.013 Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T. A., & McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 319–​337. https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​annu​rev.soc.34.040​507.134​7 19 Campbell, D. (2002). The history and development of the Campbell Interest and Skill Survey. Journal of Career Assessment, 10(2), 150–​168. Campbell, D. P. & Borgen, F. H. (1999). Holland’s theory and development of interest inventories. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55, 86–​101. Cardador, M. T., Damian, R. I., & Wiegand, J. P. (2021). Does more mean less?: Interest surplus and the gender gap in STEM careers. Journal of Career Assessment, 29(1), 76–​97. https://​doi. org/​10.1177/​10690​7272​0930​658 Carless, S. A. (1999). Career assessment: Holland’s vocational interests, personality characteristics, and abilities. Journal of Career Assessment, 7(2), 125–​144. Cheryan, S., Master, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2015). Cultural stereotypes as gatekeepers: Increasing girls’ interest in computer science and engineering by diversifying stereotypes. Frontiers in psychology, 49. Conley, J. J. (1984). The hierarchy of consistency: A review and model of longitudinal findings on adult individual differences in intelligence, personality and self-​opinion. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 11–​25. Costa, P. T. Jr., Fozard, J. L., & McCrae, R. R. (1977). Personological interpretation of factors from the Strong vocational interest blank scales. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 10, 231–​243. Costa, Jr. P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Holland, J. L. (1984). Personality and vocational interests in an adult sample. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(3), 390–​400. Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–​370. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​10888​6831​4564​789

188    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald Davidshofer, C. O. (1985). Review of the Jackson vocational interest survey. In J. V. Mitchell (Ed.), Ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. I). University of Nebraska Press. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men, women, and motivation. In J. Y. Shah & W.L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–​447). Guilford Press. Eagly, A. H. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 38(9), 971. doi:10.1037/​0003-​066X.38.9.971 Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-​temporal meta-​analysis of US public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–​754. doi:10.1037/​0022-​3514.46.4.735 Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A. B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals, and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(2), 235–​249. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​j.1471-​6402.2009.01493.x Finch, F.H. & Odoroff, M.E. (1939). Sex differences in vocational interests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(2), 151–​156. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-​changing . . . or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–​2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(3), 353–​ 363. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​03616​8431​6634​081 Hansen, J. C. (1988). Changing interests of women: Myth or realty? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 37(2), 133–​150. Hansen, J. C. & Stocco, J. L. (1980). Stability of vocational interests of adolescents and young adults. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 13, 173–​178. Hansen, J. C. & Swanson, J. L. (1983). Stability of interests and the predictive and concurrent validity of the 1981 Strong-​Campbell interest inventory for college majors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 194–​201. Harris, J. A., Vernon, P. A., Johnson, A. M., & Jang, K. L. (2006). Phenotypic and genetic relationships between vocational interests and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 1531–​1541. Hoff, K. A., Briley, D. A., Wee, C. J. M., & Rounds, J. (2018). Normative changes in interests from adolescence to adulthood: A meta-​analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 144(4), 426–​451. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​bul​0000​140 Holland, J. L. (1985). Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Holland, J. L., Johnston, J. A., Asama, N. F., & Polys, S. M. (1993). Validating and using the career beliefs inventory. Journal of Career Development, 19(4), 233–​244. Jackson, D.N. (1977). Jackson vocational interest survey manual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N. (2000). Jackson vocational interest survey manual (second edition). Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. Jackson, D. N. & Williams, D. R. (1975). Occupational classification in terms of interest patterns. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 6, 269–​280. Kågesten, A., Gibbs, S., Blum, R. W., Moreau, C., Chandra-​Mouli, V., Herbert, A., & Amin, A. (2016). Understanding factors that shape gender attitudes in early adolescence globally: A mixed-​methods systematic review. PloS One, 11(6), e0157805.

Sex Differences in Vocational Interests    189 Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1037/​a0037​215 Lippa, R. (1998). Gender-​ related individual differences and the structure of vocational interests: The importance of the people-​things dimension. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 996–​1009. Lippa, R.A. (2010). Sex differences in personality traits and gender-​related occupational preferences across 53 nations: Testing evolutionary and social-​environmental theories. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 619–​636. Low, K. S. D., Yoon, M., Roberts, B. W., & Rounds, J. (2005). The stability of vocational interest from early adolescence to middle adulthood: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 713–​737. Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Master, A., Cheryan, S., Moscatelli, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Programming experience promotes higher STEM motivation among first-​grade girls. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 92–​106. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jecp.2017.03.013 McIntyre, M. M. & Graziano, W. G. (2019). A snapshot of person and thing orientations: How individual differences in interest manifest in everyday life. Personality and Individual Differences, 136, 160–​165. Murphy, K. R. & Davidshofer, C. O. (1991). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Ott-​Holland, C. J., Huang, J. L., Ryan, A. M., Elizondo, F., & Wadlington, P. L. (2013). Culture and vocational interests: The moderating role of collectivism and gender egalitarianism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 569–​581. Paessler, K. (2015). Sex differences in variability in vocational interests: Evidence from two large samples. European Journal of Personality, 29, 568–​578. Rottinghaus, P. J., Betz, N. E., & Borgen, F. H. (2003). Validity of parallel measures of vocational interests and confidence. Journal of Career Assessment, 11(4), 355–​378. Schermer, J. A. (2012). The Jackson Career Explorer: Two further validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 20(4), 507–​519. Schermer, J. A. (2018). Individual differences in vocational interests. In V. Zeigler-​Hill and T. Shackelford (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 443–​ 457). London, UK: SAGE. Schermer, J. A. (2019). The Jackson Career Explorer: correlates with self-​monitoring, and social desirability. Psychological Reports, 122(4), 1516–​1528. DOI: 10.1177/​0033294118781321 Schermer, J. A. & MacDougall, R. (2011). The Jackson Career Explorer in relation to the Career Directions Inventory. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(4), 442–​451. Schermer, J. A., MacDougall, R., & Jackson, D. N. (2012). Jackson Career Explorer manual. London, Canada: SIGMA Assessment Systems. Schermer, J. A. & Vernon, P. A. (2008). A behavior genetic analysis of vocational interests using a modified version of the Jackson Vocational Interest Survey. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 103–​109. Stewart, V. (1976). Social influences on sex differences in behavior. In M.S. Teitelbaum (ed.), Sex differences: Social and biological perspectives (pp. 138–​174). Garden City, NY: Anchor. Strong, E. K., Jr. (1951). Permanence of interest scores over 22 years. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 89–​91.

190    J.A. Schermer and K.B. MacDonald Strong, E. K., Jr. & Campbell, D. P. (1966). Manual for Strong Vocational Interest Blank. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Strong, E. K., Jr. & Campbell, D. P. (1981). Strong-​Campbell Interest Inventory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-​ analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–​884. Swanson, J. L. & Hansen, J. C. (1988). Stability of vocational interests over 4-​year, 8-​year, and 12-​year intervals. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 185–​202. Thomas, R. G. (1985). Review of Jackson vocational interest survey. In J. V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 740–​742). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurement of the University of Nebraska-​Lincoln. Zarrella, K. L. & Schnerger, J. M. (1990). Temporal stability of occupational interest inventories. Psychological Reports, 66, 1067–​1074.

chapter 13

Ge nder Differe nc e s i n Negotiati ons Katharina G. Kugler, Julia A. M. Reif, and Jens Mazei

Consider for a moment: Did you initiate a negotiation the last time you heard of a career opportunity? Did you successfully negotiate your current salary? Do you remember receiving recognition from your co-​workers for driving a hard bargain? Your likelihood of answering “yes” to those questions may depend—​among other factors—​ on your gender. Research has repeatedly shown that, on average, women initiate fewer negotiations compared to men (Kugler et al., 2018), negotiate less assertively and successfully (Mazei et al., 2015; Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999; Walters, Stuhlmacher, & Meyer, 1998), and experience more negative evaluations and treatment when behaving assertively (e.g., Williams & Tiedens, 2016). Phenomena like the gender wage gap and “labyrinth,” reflecting the myriad obstacles that women face throughout their careers, have been linked to these gender differences in negotiations (e.g., Babcock et al., 2006; Bowles & McGinn, 2008; Greig, 2008; Small et al., 2007; Tharenou, 2001). Highlighting gender differences in negotiations and their consequences for women, in particular, is a prevalent and certainly relevant endeavor in theory and research. However, men’s negotiation experience recently has received more attention, too. Consider again for a moment: Have you ever felt social pressure to initiate a negotiation? Do you remember perceiving an expectation to negotiate aggressively and assertively? Did you experience negative reactions from your co-​workers for a “weak” negotiation outcome? Again, your likelihood of answering “yes” to those questions may depend—​among other factors—​on your gender. Men, more than women, may feel socially pressured to negotiate assertively and drive a hard bargain (e.g., Kennedy & Kray, 2015; Miller, 2013). The described overall and average gender differences might seem simplified—​and yes, they are. Indeed, many factors influence gender differences in negotiations, reinforcing or mitigating the overall effects (for an overview, see Bowles et al., 2022). These factors

192    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei range from the cultural and situational negotiation context to individual factors, and they draw a complex picture of gender differences in negotiations. Yet, this complex picture proves helpful, as it can guide individuals when planning, designing, conducting, and dealing with negotiations in the work context. It may also influence organizations in creating and shaping the situations and organizational cultures in which negotiations take place. It is worthwhile for organizations to pay attention to the topic, as negotiations are omnipresent in the work context and beyond. Not only do employees negotiate their salaries, careers, and working conditions, negotiations are part of many jobs, and organizations profit from successful negotiations and good deals.

An Overview of Gender Differences in Negotiations Gender differences in negotiations are predominantly explained by social role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Wood, 2012). In a nutshell, individuals do not behave randomly in social situations, but in ways that fit the social context. A social role encompasses expectations regarding the “proper way” to behave. The main focus of the theory is on male and female gender roles and how other social roles—​like the role of a “successful negotiator”—​match those gender roles (or do not). In more detail, social role theory assumes that men and women “are differently distributed into social roles” (Eagly & Wood, 2012: 459) due to evolved biosocial sex differences. By continually observing men and women in “typical” social roles (e.g., women as primary “caregivers” and men as primary “breadwinners”; Wood & Eagly, 2002), people form consensus beliefs about men’s and women’s attributes—​so-​called gender role beliefs or stereotypes (Eagly et al., 2020; for convenience’s sake, we use the term “gender roles” and “gender role beliefs”). The female gender role revolves around “communion” and is characterized by compassion, warmth, expressiveness, as well as an orientation toward others and the maintenance of relationships. The male gender role revolves around “agency” and is characterized by assertiveness, competitiveness, decisiveness, as well as an orientation toward the self and goal attainment (e.g., Eagly et al., 2020; Sczesny, Nater, & Eagly, 2019). Research indicates that women indeed tend to be more communal than men (meta-​ analytical effect size: Hedges’ g =​−0.56, 95% CI [−0.58, −0.54], including 937 effect sizes; Hsu et al., 2021)1 and men tend to be more agentic than women (meta-​analytical effect size: Hedges’ g =​0.40, 95% CI [0.38, 0.42], including 928 effect sizes; Hsu et al., 2021). Gender roles are both descriptive and normative (Eagly, 1987): They not only describe characteristics and behaviors men and women typically have or demonstrate, but also 1  Note that we included effect sizes of meta-​analyses only, given that they offer an overall average value including all studies available on a certain topic. Effect sizes of primary studies are often heterogeneous and context-​specific. Elaborating on those details would exceed the scope of this chapter.

Gender Differences in Negotiations    193 prescribe and proscribe characteristics and behaviors men and women should, or should not, have or demonstrate (Rudman et al., 2012). As gender role beliefs are internalized, they become part of people’s identities (Hsu et al., 2021; Wood & Eagly, 2015). Thus, gender role beliefs lead to personal pressure, as people strive to act according to their identity (Eagly & Wood, 2012). Gender roles also guide behavior by producing social pressure, as gender role-​conforming behavior is rewarded, whereas non-​conformity is punished by the social environment, with the latter referred to as backlash (Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). Therefore, people strive to conform to social role expectations (e.g., Eagly & Wood, 2013). Just as male and female gender roles describe (prescribe) what men and women typically (should) do, “the negotiator” also encompasses certain social role beliefs. Effective negotiators are stereotyped as strong, dominant, assertive, and rational, characteristics that are consistent with the male gender role but inconsistent with the female gender role (see Figure 13.1; Kray & Thompson, 2005; Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013). By contrast, ineffective negotiators are stereotyped as weak, too conciliatory, emotional, and irrational (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001), characteristics that are more consistent with the female gender role and inconsistent with the male gender role. The consequences of this will be discussed below from the female and the male perspective, a binary that has prevailed in theory and research thus far but has recently also been—​ rightly—​challenged (Hyde et al., 2019). The female perspective: The relative (in)consistency of social roles. Following the theoretical rationale outlined above, the inconsistency between the female role and the negotiator role causes personal and social pressure for women. Women who enter negotiations and show dominant and assertive behavior act against their female gender role. As a consequence, women violate their internal role consistency and run the risk of incurring backlash (i.e., negative social reactions like negative evaluations; Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007; Rudman & Phelan, 2008; Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013; Tinsley et al., 2009). Striving for internal role consistency and avoiding backlash, women can shy away from initiating negotiations and driving hard bargains.

Social Roles

Male

Negotiator

Female

Figure 13.1  Illustration of the male, female, and negotiator roles and their relative overlap, causing overall gender differences in negotiations.

194    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei Research has supported these claims. Women have a lower propensity to negotiate compared to men because they recognize or actually have fewer negotiation opportunities than men (Babcock et al., 2006, Stevens & Whelan, 2019), feel less entitled to negotiate (Barron, 2003), feel more nervous in negotiation situations with male evaluators (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007), fear greater backlash (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010), anticipate lower benefits of negotiating, especially in masculine contexts (Reif et al., 2019), and have a lower negotiation self-​efficacy (Miles & LaSalle, 2008; Reif et al., 2019). At work, these processes entail that women expect to receive lower wages compared to men (Kiessling et al., 2019; Stevens, Bavetta, & Gist, 1993) and are associated with lower minimum acceptable offers (Fabre et al., 2016). As a result, women on average initiate fewer negotiations than men (meta-​analytical effect size: Hedges’ g =​0.20, 95% CI [0.13, 0.27], including 55 effect sizes, Kugler et al., 2018). Additionally, their opening offers are less consistent and aggressive as well as lower than their initial intentions compared to men’s (Babcock et al., 2006; Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001; Miles & Clenney, 2010), and they are socially penalized for initiating negotiations (Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007). Adhering to their gender role during the negotiation, women are less competitive than men (meta-​analytical effect size: r =​0.04, p< 0.01, including 79 effect sizes, Walters, Stuhlmacher, & Meyer, 1998), and they demand less (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010). At the end of a negotiation, women achieve worse economic outcomes on average than men (meta-​analytical effect size: Hedges’ g =​0.20, 95% CI [0.11, 0.29], including 123 effect sizes, Mazei et al., 2015; also see Shan et al., 2019; Stuhlmacher & Walters, 1999), and they are less satisfied after a negotiation (Watson, 1994). If women nevertheless exhibit dominant behavior, they experience backlash (meta-​analytical effect size of “dominance X target gender interaction effect”: d =​-​0.19, 95% CI [-​0.34, -​0.04], including 50 effect sizes, Williams & Tiedens, 2016; also see Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013). The male perspective: The fragility of one’s gender status. Only recently has the predominant focus on women in negotiations been supplemented by a “male perspective.” Research on men’s perspective does not suggest that women have an easier time in negotiations—​women clearly encounter prejudice and disadvantage (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012). Instead, processes that concern men are relevant precisely because they can lead to less favorable outcomes for women (e.g., Kennedy & Kray, 2015; Netchaeva, Kouchaki, & Sheppard, 2015). The theoretical rationale behind the male gender role in negotiations focuses on the basic insight that manhood can be perceived as relatively precarious, or fragile (e.g., Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012; Vandello et al., 2008). In other words, manhood is viewed as a “social status,” which not only “must be earned” and “is confirmed primarily by others,” but also “can be lost or taken away” (Vandello & Bosson, 2013: 101). Belief in the precariousness of manhood is actually a global phenomenon: People from diverse countries experience manhood as not “assured,” such that men can lose their “status as a man” (Bosson et al., 2021: 242). For instance, when reading about a person who is “no longer a man,” people readily understood that this state of affairs was likely due to social reasons, such as job loss (Vandello & Bosson,

Gender Differences in Negotiations    195 2013; Vandello et al., 2008). Similarly, men can incur losses in respect and status when they are perceived as atypical for a man, for instance, when they work in female-​typed occupations or are subordinate to a female boss in a male-​typed job (Brescoll et al., 2012; Heilman & Wallen, 2010). Altogether, similar to women who encounter backlash when they initiate negotiations and negotiate assertively (see above), men can face meaningful losses in terms of their manhood and social standing. These “external” pressures are in turn processed and considered by men: Men can experience negative emotions when their gender status (i.e., being seen as a “real” man; Vandello et al., 2008) is in jeopardy, including anxiety (Bosson et al., 2009; Vandello et al., 2008), discomfort and anger (Vescio et al., 2021), as well as shame and guilt (Gebhard et al., 2019; Vescio et al., 2021). Moreover, men engage in an array of actions to protect their manhood (e.g., Vandello & Bosson, 2013; Weaver et al., 2010), and this is how negotiations come into play. Recapitulating, economically successful negotiators are seen as being agentic (e.g., Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)—​just like “real” men (e.g., Eagly et al., 2020; Rudman et al., 2012). A lack of success in negotiations, then, may also reveal a lack of agency (see also Kray & Thompson, 2005; Kulik & Olekalns, 2012). Thus, men who are unsuccessful in negotiations could be seen as unmanly—​posing a threat to men’s fragile gender status (Kennedy & Kray, 2015; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012). As Miller (2013: 7) put it, “for men [negotiating] may take the form of a high-​stakes gamble,” such that “men who cannot measure up in negotiations, or fail spectacularly, may feel like they are ceding some of their masculinity and status in the exchange.” As formally outlined in the MEN—​Masculinity Effects in Negotiations—​Model (Mazei et al., 2021), fueled by the “external” pressures described above, men can perceive their manhood to be potentially in question in negotiations (e.g., Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012), which may trigger anxiety (Netchaeva, Kouchaki, & Sheppard, 2015; Vandello & Bosson, 2013). Yet men may also become enthusiastic about negotiations (Mazei, Zerres, & Hüffmeier, 2021): Negotiating frequently and effectively can project masculine agency—​ hence, by engaging in these actions, men can earn their “to-​be-​earned” manhood status (Bosson & Vandello, 2011; Vandello & Bosson, 2013), which they likely appreciate. Overall, men strive for economic success in negotiations to preserve and underscore their gender status, for instance, by making ambitious offers (Netchaeva, Kouchaki, & Sheppard, 2015) or even using unethical tactics (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012; Lee et al., 2017). Finally, it is proposed that men experience pride (but see Vescio et al., 2021) when they are economically successful, but shame (Gebhard et al., 2019; Vescio et al., 2021) when they are not.

Factors Influencing the Overall Gender Differences in Negotiations The reasoning behind the overall and average gender difference in negotiations might appear simplified and generic—​and it certainly is. Many factors influence how

196    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei individuals ultimately behave. In the following, we continue to use gender role theory to outline the factors that influence and alter gender differences in negotiations (also see Bowles et al., 2022). The female perspective: Resolving the relative (in)consistency of social roles. There are two broad ways in which the relative (in)consistency between the male, female, and negotiator role can be altered or resolved, which can consequently alter gender differences. The relative overlap between the female, male, and negotiator role can be directly changed by either shifting or broadening social roles. The inconsistency can also be reduced indirectly by reducing the relevance and influence of women’s gender dynamics (i.e., situational salience of gender roles), and consequently, the role pressure induced by gender roles (see Figure 13.2). Shifting or broadening social roles. Shifting or broadening social roles aims at generating more overlap between social roles that are commonly inconsistent (i.e., the female role and the negotiator role). Shifting targets the negotiator role, such that the negotiator role encompasses more characteristics that are seen as typical for women (and fewer characteristics seen as typical for men), which can reduce the pressure on women when they negotiate. When broadening social roles, a greater range of behaviors becomes “acceptable” for the respective role, thereby increasing the general overlap between roles. As the overlap increases, fewer behaviors are role-​inconsistent, removing personal and social pressure. We illustrate these basic ideas with examples from research. First, the immediate context of the negotiation situation can be varied by framing the negotiation in a cooperative way, focusing on people’s common ground and the relationship (i.e., a frame consistent with the female gender role), versus a competitive frame. In cooperatively framed negotiations, the gender difference in initiating negotiations was eliminated (Reif & Neser, 2013) or even reversed (Reif et al., 2019). Gender differences in initiating negotiations were also reduced when a negotiation was framed as an ‘opportunity to ask’ (versus as an ‘opportunity to negotiate’), given that the term ‘ask’ is more aligned with the female gender role than the term ‘negotiate’ (Small et al., 2007).

Factors influencing the gender difference in negotiations by: Shifting or broadening social roles to increase overlap for women

Reducing the fragility of men’s gender status

Reducing the relavance and influence of gender dynamics

Social Roles

Social Roles

Social Roles

Male Negotiator

Female

Male Negotiator

Female

Male Negotiator

Female

Figure 13.2  Illustration of the male, female, and negotiator roles and their relative overlap, when influenced by factors resolving the overall gender differences in negotiations.

Gender Differences in Negotiations    197 Second, gender differences in negotiations also depend on the broader cultural context in which a negotiation takes place. In matrilineal cultures, in which “a norm of female sellers being tougher bargainers might have evolved,” women earn more surplus in bargaining than men (Andersen et al., 2018: 776). Third, the subject matter of the negotiation influences the relative (in)consistency of roles. When the topic is rather feminine (e.g., decorations for a dinner) than masculine (e.g., payment arrangement for a dinner), women were more likely to initiate negotiations than men, given that a negotiation about the feminine topic was consistent with the female gender role (Babcock, 2016; Bear & Babcock, 2012; for related work, see also Miles & LaSalle, 2008). Advocating for others was also shown to reduce gender differences in negotiation behaviors and outcomes, as such negotiations integrate aspects of the female gender role into the negotiator role, namely “caring for other people” (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010; Eagly et al., 2020; Mazei et al., 2015). By contrast, if women negotiate assertively for themselves, they violate gender role expectations of acting warmly and other-​oriented (Olekalns & Kulik, 2011; Wade, 2001). Fourth, a focus on the negotiator showed that empowering women also reduced gender differences in negotiation situations: Priming power made women feel less aversive in response to an encounter framed as a negotiation (Small et al., 2007), and primed agency improved women’s negotiation performance (Bear & Babcock, 2017). Gender differences in negotiation outcomes were also reduced when negotiators were experienced (Mazei et al., 2015). Experience supposedly implies that successful negotiation behaviors have become part of one’s identity, which reduces personal pressure. All examples have in common that the degree of overlap between the female role and the negotiator role increased, diminishing (or even reversing) the gender difference. Whereas broadening social roles by allowing individuals to exhibit a broader range of behaviors without encountering personal and social pressure is certainly favorable to support equal opportunities and diversity, shifting the negotiator role toward the female gender role (and away from the male gender role) should be treated with caution. Reversing the gender difference and creating unequal opportunities to the disadvantage of men should certainly not be a goal for organizations. Last but not least, the current debate and movement away from the classical gender binary and the associated breakup of traditional gender roles toward more diversity (Hyde et al., 2019) might help to broaden roles and allow for behavior outside the traditional roles. Reducing the relevance of gender roles. The inconsistency between the content of the female gender role and the content of the negotiator role can also be reduced indirectly by reducing the situational salience of gender roles and the associated role pressure. For example, gender roles fade from the spotlight if negotiating—​and thus negotiation behavior—​is clearly expected from a person, and the parameters of the negotiation are made transparent (i.e., reduction of ambiguity; Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005). Gender role expectations are even more likely to vanish (at least from the social environment) if negotiations are anonymous. The former idea (i.e., reducing ambiguity) goes back to the concept of “strong” and “weak” situations (Mischel, 1977; see Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005). “Weak”

198    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei situations do not provide a clear script for how to behave. As a consequence, people fall back on default behavioral scripts, such as gender roles (Bowles & McGinn, 2008; see also Kugler et al., 2018). In “strong” situations, by contrast, clear scripts for how to behave exist that people can apply as behavioral guides. The latter idea (i.e., anonymizing situations) is rooted in constraints on communication exchange and consequential effects of psychological distance, which reduce the visibility or salience of social cues (Stuhlmacher et al., 2007). Ambiguity about whether and how to negotiate has been shown to be reduced when a negotiation topic was typically negotiated (e.g., a salary) or when a situation contained cues or prompts to negotiate. In such “strong” negotiation situations, gender differences were diminished or disappeared (Kugler et al., 2018; Leibbrandt & List, 2015; Mazei et al. 2015; Small et al., 2007). Similarly, transparency (e.g., about the range of possible negotiated outcomes) and a formal negotiation structure reduced gender differences in negotiations (Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; Elvira & Graham, 2002; Mazei et al., 2015). In such cases, the expectation that “everyone negotiates within the given parameters” outweighed gender role expectations, removing the pressure for women to conform to their gender role. Expectations by others regarding women’s and men’s adherence to their gender role also become irrelevant when women’s and men’s gender remains unknown. Hiding identities by, for example, negotiating in virtual settings can reduce role pressure by creating anonymity. Stuhlmacher, Citera, & Willis (2007) showed that women behaved more hostilely in virtual (vs. face-​to-​face negotiations), whereas no such difference was found for men. All these examples have in common that gender roles fade from the spotlight, “allowing” everyone to take on the negotiator role. Creating strong or anonymous negotiation situations can thus be a means to support equal opportunities that can be implemented by organizations in a straightforward way. Once it becomes more “normal” for women to negotiate and drive hard bargains, the female gender role might even broaden. The male perspective: Factors influencing the fragility of one’s gender status. To the extent that a fragile gender status drives men’s experiences and behaviors (e.g., Vandello et al., 2008; Vescio et al., 2021), directly reducing the extent to which men’s gender status is questioned, or generally fragile, should make men negotiate less assertively. Moreover, a fragile gender status among men, even if present, may simply be less relevant and hence impactful in certain negotiation situations, which points to indirect ways to lessen the influence of men’s gender dynamics (see Figure 13.2). Please note, however, that many theoretically relevant moderators have yet to be tested in a negotiation context. Reducing the perceived fragility of one’s gender status. Men can perceive their gender status to be less fragile or in question—​either temporarily or chronically. For instance, Fowler and Geers (2017) found that engaging in a self-​affirmation procedure (i.e., writing about something experienced as fulfilling) led men who endorsed masculine traits and those who felt threatened in their manhood to choose less painful levels of electrical current that they allegedly would have to endure, revealing a reduced need

Gender Differences in Negotiations    199 to demonstrate manhood. Similarly, Wellman et al. (2021) observed that engaging in a self-​affirmation procedure led threatened men to evaluate another man described as feminine and gay more favorably (i.e., a less homophobic reaction). Another study by Brescoll et al. (2012), focusing explicitly on the reactions of other people, mirrored these findings, such that men working in gender-​atypical arrangements (e.g., having a female boss in a male-​typed occupation) did not incur losses in social status when their manhood was underscored in another way. Altogether, engaging in affirmations or, more generally, providing men with means other than negotiating (i.e., alternatives or substitutes) to showcase masculinity appears suitable to (temporarily) address men’s concerns about their manhood. For sure, preventing other people from respecting “atypical” men less than “typical” men (e.g., Heilman & Wallen, 2010) could also go a long way to reducing the pressures that men experience in negotiations. Another relevant situational influence is the gender of men’s counterpart (e.g., Kennedy & Kray, 2015; Miller, 2013). Netchaeva, Kouchaki, & Sheppard (2015) found that women and men did not differ when they each negotiated with a male counterpart, but men negotiated significantly more assertively than women when the counterpart was a woman, as mediated by greater threat among men (but see also Bowles, Babcock, & Lai, 2007; Dahl, Vescio, & Weaver, 2015). In addition to situational variations, men differed in the extent to which they experience stress due to being (seen as) gender–​atypical, termed gender role discrepancy stress (Reidy et al., 2014). This individual difference variable is related to, for instance, men’s likelihood of supporting aggressive policies (DiMuccio & Knowles, 2021; for further examples of individual differences, see Burkley, Wong, & Bell, 2016; Gebhard et al., 2019). Overall, there are substantial individual differences among men as a group (Miller, 2013) that are likely to (chronically) affect their approach to negotiations and, hence, any gender differences. As with variation among individual men, there is variation on broader levels. First, on an organizational level, organizations can have a more or less pronounced “masculine contest culture,” which entails “a zero-​sum competition played according to rules defined by masculine norms (e.g., displaying strength, showing no weakness or doubt)” (Berdahl et al., 2018: 424). In organizations less characterized by such a culture, men likely feel less of a need to showcase their masculinity (Berdahl et al., 2018), which should aid in the pursuit of gender parity. Moreover, on a societal level, recent work has highlighted variation in the extent to which manhood is seen as precarious across numerous countries (Bosson et al., 2021). Of key importance, Bosson et al. (2021) also provided correlational evidence suggesting that countries with stronger beliefs in the precarious nature of manhood were characterized by greater gender inequality. The finding that beliefs about the precarious nature of manhood are not fixed but variable (Bosson et al., 2021) leads to the question of how to effect societal change in these beliefs. Bosson and Vandello (2011) reasoned that one potential cause of precarious manhood is the gendered division of labor (see above): “Because men have historically occupied social roles that involve status-​seeking and resource acquisition, manhood itself has become associated with qualities such as competitiveness, defensiveness, and

200    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei constant struggling to ‘prove’ worth and status” (p. 82). Hence, change toward less precarious manhood might be effected by supporting men in their fulfilment of more communal roles in a society (e.g., Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015; Meeussen, Van Laar, & Van Grootel, 2020), broadening the male social role. Reducing the relevance of gender roles. In other negotiation situations, men may struggle with a fragile gender status, yet this gender dynamic may be less impactful. For instance, as previously mentioned, negotiations can be perceived in less agentic (and more female-​stereotypical) terms. If so, not prevailing in such a negotiation may pose less of a risk to men’s gender status, thereby reducing their tendency to assert themselves (see above). Kray, Galinsky, & Thompson (2002) found that men had lower goals and economic outcomes when the negotiator role was described in more feminine terms. Kray and Haselhuhn (2012) found that people differed in the extent to which they perceived negotiation effectiveness to be associated with men and masculinity (and the greater the extent to which people did so, the greater their acceptance of an unethical negotiation tactic). Altogether, effecting change in people’s gendered conceptualization of negotiations could help to reduce gender gaps (see also Mazei, Zerres, & Hüffmeier, 2021). Finally, the social context in which negotiations take place can play a crucial role. Specifically, Weaver, Vandello, & Bosson (2013) showed that men were less affected by a masculinity threat when the social context suggested greater privacy, pointing to the key role of (the lack of) an audience (or again anonymity). In summary, men do not invariably negotiate assertively, and a better understanding of such variation among men would help to increase our understanding of the conditions under which differences between women and men become smaller.

Conclusions for the Organizational Context The rationales for gender differences in negotiations based on traditional male and female gender roles might sound somewhat antiquated for today’s organizations. Since the middle of the last century, women have gained increased representation in all domains within organizations, including managerial positions and positions requiring higher education—​ positions formerly dominated by men. Those positions imply greater agency among women, the consequence being that agency has also become part of the female gender role (Donnelly & Twenge, 2017; Gipson et al., 2017; Twenge, 1997, 2001; Wood & Eagly, 2010). Nevertheless, traditional gender roles continue to be deeply rooted in personal identities (Reif et al., in press) and social expectations. Moreover, research has shown that in the United States, for example, the male advantage in agency has remained rather stable over the last decades, whereas the female advantage in communion has actually increased (Eagly et al., 2020). Hence, gender differences in negotiations remain striking and robust (e.g., Kugler et al., 2018; Mazei et al., 2015).

Gender Differences in Negotiations    201 Organizations are well advised to pay attention to gender differences in negotiations in order to pursue gender egalitarianism, inclusion, and equal opportunities. Employees not only negotiate their salaries, benefits, and career opportunities, many employees also engage in negotiation as part of their job within the organization and/​or with other stakeholders outside the organization. For the purpose of evidence-​based management (i.e., “translating principles based on best evidence into organizational practices”; Rousseau, 2006: 256), we can conclude that overall gender differences in negotiations exist—​but they also clearly depend on numerous factors, providing starting points for interventions. This so-​called “Big E Evidence refers to generalizable knowledge . . . derived from scientific methods” (Rousseau, 2006: 260). In order for organizations to develop the best strategies and interventions, it is additionally necessary to add the “little evidence [which] is local or organization specific, as exemplified by root cause analysis and other fact-​based approaches” (Rousseau, 2006: 260). A first starting point for organizations could be training or coaching individual employees—​especially women—​on how, when, and what to negotiate. However, any training program encouraging women to negotiate needs to carefully consider potential backlash resulting from exactly these negotiations (Recalde & Vesterlund, 2020). For example, research has shown that women experience less backlash when using more indirect ways of being persistent in negotiations (Bowles & Flynn, 2010) or assertively negotiating on behalf of others (Mazei et al. 2015). Other specific female strategies that have the potential to produce higher economic outcomes and less backlash (e.g., reducing ambiguity or raising awareness about gender stereotypes, Bowles & Babcock, 2013) or strategies making negotiating in a masculine situation a better fit for women (Bear & Babcock, 2017) may reduce gender differences but do not seem to be self-​ explanatory, reducing their likelihood of being used (Mazei, Mertes, & Hüffmeier, 2020). Independently of this, training on a variety of strategies (ranging from assertiveness to yielding) could help men and women confidently choose from a larger behavioral repertoire (consistent and inconsistent with their gender role), which may ultimately broaden the social role of “the effective negotiator.” Yet it is clear that women, as the disadvantaged group in negotiations (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012), should not carry the weight of making change all by themselves. Gender differences in negotiation are a systemic issue, as societal gender roles are their root cause. Therefore, interventions designed for women should support them navigating a social context that has yet to undergo change. Along these lines, considering the context of negotiations affords a notable opportunity to reduce gender differences in negotiations. In fact, initiatives designed to tackle the negotiation context have been found to be more effective than those tackling individual-​level factors (Recalde & Vesterlund, 2020). First and foremost, reducing ambiguity about negotiation opportunities and advancing transparency can effectively reduce gender differences (e.g., Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; Leibbrandt & List, 2015). Clear communication about the negotiability of topics, the negotiation range, or at least the negotiation procedure supports men and women in negotiating equally effectively.

202    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei Although less underpinned by research, the following negotiation types and contexts should—​in theory—​also facilitate more gender equality. For example, negotiations involving multiple issues often involve areas of competition but also areas of common ground where using different (e.g., assertive and conciliatory) strategies help identify a mutually beneficial agreement (but see also Calhoun & Smith, 1999; Miles & LaSalle, 2008). Such negotiations could help women in using strategies consistent with their gender role in addition to gender-​role inconsistent behaviors, and men to feel less threatened when they attain some goals while making some compromises. Furthermore, promoting women who successfully and assertively negotiate, and also publicizing their success, as well as not penalizing men who negotiate cooperatively, could help to create a culture that allows individuals to break with or broaden traditional gender roles. Such a culture would respect diverse behaviors and promote inclusion. In this respect, recall the relevance of “masculine conflict cultures” (Berdahl et al., 2018), which may be counteracted by such measures. Just like the example interventions to support gender equality in negotiations and organizations that we listed above, many different conclusions for organizations can be derived from the theory and research outlined in this chapter. Although implementing any intervention might be initially costly, time-​consuming, and perhaps even encounter resistance, it certainly could help provide equal opportunities for employees of all genders as well as a culture of diversity and inclusion, which certainly pays off in the end. To support organizations striving to provide all members with equal opportunities—​ especially when it comes to negotiating—​a comprehensive research agenda is necessary. Starting with a focus on the negotiation topic, research could answer the question of whether gendered norms about negotiating everyday topics, such as work assignments and working hours, add up and contribute to gender differences in career opportunities (Bowles et al., 2022). When considering the negotiating individuals, primary emphasis thus far has been placed on women’s perspective. Adding the male perspective and overcoming the binary perspective on gender differences in negotiations would result in a more comprehensive picture on gender dynamics in negotiations (Hyde et al., 2019; Mazei, Zerres, & Hüffmeier, 2021). Furthermore, little is known about team and organizational cultures that support equal opportunities for negotiations and thus could serve as a model for team and organizational development initiatives. Last but not least, arguably the biggest task for research is to evaluate interventions and initiatives designed to reduce the gender differences in negotiations. Organizations would immensely profit from criteria and examples that have been proven to actually have an effect on gender differences in negotiations.

References Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 256–​267. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1037/​a0017​094

Gender Differences in Negotiations    203 Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much. . . or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–​122. Andersen, S., Ertac, S., Gneezy, U., List, J. A., & Maximiano, S. (2018). On the cultural basis of gender differences in negotiation. Experimental Economics, 21(4), 757–​778. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​s10​683–​017–​9547–​y Babcock, L. (2016). Negotiating femininity: How gender identity influences women’s outcomes in gender role incongruent negotiations. Unpublished manuscript, Dietrich College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Babcock, L., Gelfand, M., Small, D., & Stayn, H. (2006). Gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations. In D. de Cremer, M. Zeelenberg, & J. K. Murnighan (Eds.), Social psychology and economics (pp. 239–​259). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Barron, L. A. (2003). Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in negotiators’ beliefs about requests for a higher salary. Human Relations, 56(6), 635–​662. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F00​ 1872​6703​0566​001 Bear, J. B., & Babcock, L. (2012). Negotiation topic as a moderator of gender differences in negotiation. Psychological Science, 23(7), 743. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F0​9567​9761​2442​393 Bear, J. B., & Babcock, L. (2017). Negotiating femininity: Gender–​relevant primes improve women’s economic performance in gender role incongruent negotiations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41(2), 163–​174. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F0​3616​8431​6679​652 Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 422–​448. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​josi.12289 Bosson, J. K., Jurek, P., Vandello, J. A., Kosakowska–​Berezecka, N., Olech, M., Besta, T., Bender, M., Hoorens, V., Becker, M., Timur Sevincer, A., Best, D. L., Safdar, S., Włodarczyk, A., Zawisza, M., Żadkowska, M., Abuhamdeh, S., Badu Agyemang, C., Akbaş, G., Albayrak–​ Aydemir, N., . . . Žukauskienė, R. (2021). Psychometric properties and correlates of precarious manhood beliefs in 62 nations. Journal of Cross–​Cultural Psychology, 52(3), 231–​258. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00220​2212​1997​997 Bosson, J. K., & Vandello, J. A. (2011). Precarious manhood and its links to action and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 82–​86. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 09637​2141​1402​669 Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Arzu Wasti, S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(5), 623–​634. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6720​8331​161 Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & Lai, L. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–​103. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​j.obhdp.2006.09.001 Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2013). How can women escape the compensation negotiation dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1), 80–​96. https://​doi.org/​10.1177%2F0​3616​8431​2455​524 Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., & McGinn, K. L. (2005). Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 951–​ 965. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022–​3514.89.6.951 Bowles, H. R., & Flynn, F. (2010). Gender and persistence in negotiation: A dyadic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 769–​787. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​amj.2010.52814​595 Bowles, H. R., & McGinn, K. L. (2008). Gender in job negotiations: A two‐level game. Negotiation Journal, 24(4), 393–​410. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1571–​9979.2008.00194.x

204    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei Bowles, H. R., Thomason, B., & Macias-​Alonso, I. (2022). When gender matters in organizational negotiations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 199–​223. https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​annu​rev-​orgps​ych-​012​420-​055​523 Brescoll, V. L., Uhlmann, E. L., Moss–​Racusin, C., & Sarnell, L. (2012). Masculinity, status, and subordination: Why working for a gender stereotype violator causes men to lose status. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 354–​357. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.jesp.2011.06.005 Burkley, M., Wong, Y. J., & Bell, A. C. (2016). The Masculinity Contingency Scale (MCS): Scale development and psychometric properties. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 17(2), 113–​125. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​a0039​211 Calhoun, P., & Smith, W. P. (1999). Integrative bargaining: Does gender make a difference?. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(3), 203–​224. https://​doi.org/​10.1108/​ eb022​824 Croft, A., Schmader, T., & Block, K. (2015). An underexamined inequality: Cultural and psychological barriers to men’s engagement with communal roles. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 343–​370. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​10888​6831​4564​789 Dahl, J., Vescio, T., & Weaver, K. (2015). How threats to masculinity sequentially cause public discomfort, anger, and ideological dominance over women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 242–​ 254. https://​doi.org/​10.1027/​1864–​9335/​a000​248 DiMuccio, S. H., & Knowles, E. D. (2021). Precarious manhood predicts support for aggressive policies and politicians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(7), 1169–​1187. https://​ doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6722​0963​577 Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the Bem Sex–​Role Inventory, 1993–​2012: A cross–​temporal metaanalysis. Sex Roles, 76, 556–​565. https://​doi. org/​10.1007/​s11​199-​016-​0625-​y Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social–​role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–​598. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0033–​295X.109.3.573 Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-​temporal meta-​analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–​315. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​amp​0000​494 Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458–​476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2013). The nature–​nurture debates: 25 years of challenges in understanding the psychology of gender. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 88(3), 340–​357. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1177/​17456​9161​3484​767 Elvira, M.M. and Graham, M.E. (2002). Not just a formality: Pay system formalization and sex related earnings effects. Organization Science, 13(6), 601–​617. https://​doi.org/​10.1287/​ orsc.13.6.601.499 Fabre, E. F., Causse, M., Pesciarelli, F., & Cacciari, C. (2016). The responders’ gender stereotypes modulate the strategic decision–​making of proposers playing the ultimatum game. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 12. https://​doi.org/​10.3389/​fpsyg.2016.00012 Fowler, S. L., & Geers, A. L. (2017). Does trait masculinity relate to expressing toughness? The effects of masculinity threat and self–​affirmation in college men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18(2), 176–​186. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​men​0000​053

Gender Differences in Negotiations    205 Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-​taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–​669. https://​ doi.org/​10.1037/​0022-​3514.81.4.657 Gebhard, K. T., Cattaneo, L. B., Tangney, J. P., Hargrove, S., & Shor, R. (2019). Threatened–​ masculinity shame–​related responses among straight men: Measurement and relationship to aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 20(3), 429–​444. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​ men​0000​177 Greig, F. (2008). Propensity to negotiate and career advancement: Evidence from an investment bank that women are on a “slow elevator”. Negotiation Journal, 24(4), 495–​508. https://​ doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1571-​9979.2008.00200.x Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Women and leadership: Selection, development, leadership style, and performance. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 32–​65. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1177/​00218​8631​6687​247 Heilman, M. E., & Wallen, A. S. (2010). Wimpy and undeserving of respect: Penalties for men’s gender-​inconsistent success. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 664–​667. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jesp.2010.01.008 Hsu, N., Badura, K. L., Newman, D. A., & Speach, M. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: A meta-​analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–​1011. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​bul​0000​343 Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2019). The Future of Sex and Gender in Psychology: Five Challenges to the Gender Binary. American Psychologist. 74(2), 171–​193. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​amp​0000​307 Kennedy, J. A., & Kray, L. J. (2015). A pawn in someone else’s game? The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women’s excelling in negotiation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 3–​28. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.riob.2015.09.002 Kiessling, L., Pinger, P., Seegers, P., & Bergerhoff, J. (2019). Gender Differences in Wage Expectations: Sorting, Children, and Negotiation Styles. (CESifo Working Paper, No. 7827). https://​dx.doi.org/​10.2139/​ssrn.3467​960 Kray, L. J., Galinsky, A. D., & Thompson, L. (2002). Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 386–​409. https://​doi.org/​10.1006/​obhd.2001.2979 Kray, L. J., & Haselhuhn, M. P. (2012). Male pragmatism in negotiators’ ethical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1124–​1131. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.jesp.2012.04.006 Kray, L. J., & Thompson, L. (2005). Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: An examination of theory and research. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews (pp. 103–​182). Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942–​958. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022–​3514.80.6.942 Kugler, K. G., Reif, J. A. M., Kaschner, T., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2018). Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: A Meta–​Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 144(2), 198–​222. https://​ doi.apa.org/​doi/​10.1037/​bul​0000​135 Kulik, C. T., Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the gender divide: Lessons from the negotiation and organizational behavior literatures. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1387–​1415. https://​ doi.org/​10.1177/​01492​0631​1431​307

206    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei Lee, M., Pitesa, M., Pillutla, M. M., & Thau, S. (2017). Male immorality: An evolutionary account of sex differences in unethical negotiation behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 60(5), 2014–​2044. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​amj.2015.0461 Leibbrandt, A., & List, J. A. (2015). Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large–​scale natural field experiment. Management Science, 61(9), 2016–​2024. http://​dx.doi. org/​10.1287/​mnsc.2014.1994 Mazei, J., Mertes, M., & Hüffmeier, J. (2020). Strategies aimed at reducing gender differences in negotiation are Perceived by women as ineffective. Sex Roles, 83(9), 580–​594. http://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​s11​199–​020–​01130–​4 Mazei, J., Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Bilke, L., & Hertel, G. (2015). A meta–​ analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychological Bulletin, 141(1), 85–​104. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1037/​a0038​184 Mazei, J., Zerres, A., & Hüffmeier, J. (2021). Masculinity at the negotiation table: A theory of men’s negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 46(1). 108–​127. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​amr.2017.0570 Meeussen, L., Van Laar, C., & Van Grootel, S. (2020). How to foster male engagement in traditionally female communal roles and occupations: Insights from research on gender norms and precarious manhood. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14(1), 297–​328. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​sipr.12060 Miles, E. W., & Clenney, E. F. (2010). Gender differences in negotiation: A Status characteristics theory view. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3(2), 130–​144. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​j.1750-​4716.2010.00054.x Miles, E. W., & LaSalle, M. M. (2008). Asymmetrical contextual ambiguity, negotiation self–​ efficacy, and negotiation performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19, 36–​ 56. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1108/​104440​6081​0849​173 Miller, J. (2013). Unmasking masculinity in negotiation scholarship. Harvard Negotiation Law Review. Retrieved February 8, 2021, from https://​www.hnlr.org/​wp–​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​sites/​ 22/​2013/​11/​Mil​ler–​Unmask​ing–​Masc​ulin​ity–​in–​Nego​tiat​ion–​Scho​lars​hip.pdf Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–​352). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Netchaeva, E., Kouchaki, M., & Sheppard, L. D. (2015). A man’s (precarious) place: Men’s experienced threat and self–​assertive reactions to female superiors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(9), 1247–​1259. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6721​5593​491 Olekalns, M., & Kulik, C. T. (2011). Sugar ‘n’ spice and all things nice: Gender and strategy choices in negotiation. In P. Murray, R. Kramar, & P. McGraw (Eds.), Women at work: Research, policy and practice (pp. 237–​307). Prahran, Australia: Tilde University Press. Recalde, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2020, December). Gender differences in negotiation and policy for improvement. (NBER Working Paper No. 28183). https://​dx.doi.org/​10.3386/​w28​183 Reidy, D. E., Berke, D. S., Gentile, B., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Man enough? Masculine discrepancy stress and intimate partner violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 160–​ 164. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.paid.2014.04.021 Reif, J. A. M., Kugler, K. G., & Brodbeck, F. C. (in press). Gender differences in motives for initiating and avoiding negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research. Reif, J. A. M, Kunz, F. A., Kugler, K. G., Brodbeck, F. C. (2019). Negotiation contexts: How and why they shape women’s and men’s decision to negotiate. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 12(4), 322–​342. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ncmr.12153

Gender Differences in Negotiations    207 Reif, J. A. M., & Neser, S. (2013). Ist Verhandeln eine Typsache? Eine empirische Studie zum Einfluss der Persoenlichkeit auf das Initiieren von Verhandlungen [Does bargaining depend on the personality? An empirical study regarding the impact of the personality on the propensity to initiate negotiations]. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Ludwig–​Maxmilians–​Universitaet Muenchen, Munich, Germany. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as “evidence–​based management”?. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256–​269. https://​doi.org/​10.5465/​amr.2006.20208​679 Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 157–​176. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022–​3514.87.2.157 Rudman, L. A., Moss–​Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 165–​179. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.jesp.2011.10.008 Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–​79. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.riob.2008.04.003 Sczesny, S., Nater, C., & Eagly, A. H. (2019). Agency and communion: Their implications for gender stereotypes and gender identities. In A. Abele & B. Wojciszke (Eds.), Agency and communion in social psychology (pp. 103–​116). New York, NY: Routledge. Shan, W., Keller, J., & Joseph, D. (2019). Are men better negotiators everywhere? A meta‐analysis of how gender differences in negotiation performance vary across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), 651–​675. https://​doi.org/​10.1002/​job.2357 Small, D. A., Gelfand, M., Babcock, L., & Gettman, H. (2007). Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(4), 600–​613. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022-​3514.93.4.600 Stevens, C. K., Bavetta, A. G., & Gist, M. E. (1993). Gender differences in the acquisition of salary negotiation skills: The role of goals, self–​efficacy, and perceived control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 723–​735. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0021-​9010.78.5.723 Stevens, K., & Whelan, S. (2019). Negotiating the gender wage gap. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 58(2), 141–​188. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​irel.12228 Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Linnabery, E. (2013). Gender and negotiation: A social role analysis. In M. Olekalns & W. Adair (Eds.), Handbook of negotiation research (pp. 221–​248). London, UK: Edward Elgar. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.4337/​978178​1005​903.00018 Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Walters, A. E. (1999). Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta–​analysis. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 653–​677. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1744–​ 6570.1999.tb00​175.x Stuhlmacher, A. F., Citera, M., & Willis, T. (2007). Gender differences in virtual negotiation: Theory and research. Sex Roles, 57(5), 329–​339. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​ 199–​007–​9252–​y Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in management? Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1005–​1017. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.2307/​ 3069​444 Tinsley, C. H., Cheldelin, S. I., Schneider, A. K., & Amanatullah, E. T. (2009). Women at the bargaining table: Pitfalls and prospects. Negotiation Journal, 25(2), 233–​248. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​j.1571–​9979.2009.00222.x

208    K.G. Kugler, J.A.M. Reif, and J. Mazei Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta–​analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–​325. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​2766​650 Twenge, J. M. (2001). Changes in women’s assertiveness in response to status and roles: A cross–​temporal meta–​analysis, 1931–​1993. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 133–​145. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022-​3514.81.1.133 Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 101–​ 113. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​a0029​826 Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver, J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(6), 1325–​1339. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1037/​a0012​453 Vescio, T. K., Schermerhorn, N. E. C., Gallegos, J. M., & Laubach, M. L. (2021). The affective consequences of threats to masculinity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 97, 104195. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jesp.2021.104​195 Wade, M. E. (2001). Women and salary negotiation: The costs of self–​advocacy. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(1), 65–​76. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​1471–​6402.00008 Walters, A. E., Stuhlmacher, A. F., & Meyer, L. L. (1998). Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta–​analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 1–​29. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1006/​obhd.1998.2797 Watson, C. (1994). Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes. Negotiation journal, 10(2), 117–​127. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​2184​172 Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Intrepid, imprudent, or impetuous? The effects of gender threats on men’s financial decisions. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2), 184–​191. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​a0027​087 Weaver, J. R., Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., & Burnaford, R. M. (2010). The proof is in the punch: Gender differences in perceptions of action and aggression as components of manhood. Sex Roles, 62, 241–​251. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​199–​009–​9713–​6 Wellman, J. D., Beam, A. J., Wilkins, C. L., Newell, E. E., & Mendez, C. A. (2021). Masculinity threat increases bias and negative emotions toward feminine gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities. Advance online publication. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​men​0000​349 Williams, M. J., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2016). The subtle suspension of backlash: A meta–​analysis of penalties for women’s implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 165–​197. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​bul​0000​039 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross–​cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 699–​727. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0033–​2909.128.5.699 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–​667). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. http://​ dx.doi.org/​10.1002/​978047​0561​119.socps​y001​017 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2015). Two traditions of research on gender identity. Sex Roles, 73, 461–​473. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​199–​015–​0480–​2

chapter 14

Always at Great e r Ri sk for More Discri mi nat i on? Comparing Older Women with Older Men in the Workplace Context Angela Shakeri and Michael S. North

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that adults over 55 will make up over a quarter of the workforce by 2024 (Toossi & Torpey, 2017), and researchers point to the rapidly aging U.S. workforce to highlight the need for greater research on age and ageism in organizations (Kulik et al., 2014; North, 2019; North & Shakeri, 2019). Nevertheless, an emphasis on changing age trends alone overlooks notable gender differences in labor force participation: Whereas the proportion of working older men is declining, women over age 55 comprise over one-​third of all workers projected to enter the labor force between 2016 and 2026 (Abel & Lim, 2018). Older women today are working more than previous generations because they are better educated, occupy jobs with more advancement opportunities, enjoy their jobs more, and are either unmarried or married to partners who are also choosing to extend their working years (Goldin & Katz, 2017). From this perspective, one could argue that older women will be the primary drivers of emergent aging workforce trends. Nevertheless, to date, relatively scant attention focuses on how older women’s workplace experiences may differ from older men’s. Lay beliefs argue that older women should face greater obstacles, due to the “double-​whammy” of ageism and sexism (Itzin & Phillipson, 1995). However, recent work suggests that the story may be more complicated than that; for instance, older women are punished less severely than their male counterparts for acting agentically (Martin, North, & Phillips, 2019). Moreover, equally plausible to the double jeopardy hypothesis is an “intersectional invisibility” one, in which older women evade age-​and gender-​related backlash due to their non-​ prototypicality (Krekula, 2007). Therefore, the question remains: Do older women or older men face greater workplace discrimination?

210    A. Shakeri and M.S. North The answer to this question is that it depends. This chapter provides an overview of what the (sometimes mixed) findings say on the subject, but also—​equally important, in our opinion—​what we see as critical future research directions in this domain. To this end, we first examine disparities in older women and men’s macro labor market outcomes. Next, we briefly review work examining the causes of such disparities between older women and men, particularly focusing on the relatively small body of work that examines whether prejudices and stereotypes toward older women and men can explain these disparities. Seeking to identify areas ripe for future research, we present potential guiding questions and theoretical perspectives for scholars to help reconcile the where, when, and what of older male versus female worker disparities. Ultimately, this chapter helps contribute to the scholarly conversation on age and gender intersectionality and presents a roadmap for future research in this increasingly important area.

Comparing Older Women’s and Men’s Workplace Outcomes As older women more actively join the workplace, increasing importance centers on the workplace experiences that may hinder their advancement as compared to their older male counterparts. Fortunately, decades of research that focuses on workplace gender inequality in general can serve as a starting point to understanding disparities between older female and male workers. For example, research on gender biases in organizations suggests that women are stereotyped as high on warmth and low on competence, a stereotype that is exacerbated for mothers and which leads to negative workplace outcomes such as negative performance expectations (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Heilman & Okimoto, 2008). Further, women who behave agentically, as organizational leadership expectations dictate, violate prescriptive stereotypes to be communal and consequently experience social and economic backlash (Rudman & Phelan, 2008). In sum, extant research suggests that perceivers hold prejudices and stereotypes toward female workers, which lead to various negative workplace outcomes for these targets. Nevertheless, it remains largely unclear whether older female workers face these same disparities. Unanswered questions on this topic include the following: Do older female workers face stereotypes which target females and older adults added together, or is the stereotype content of older women unique? Can aging provide opportunities for older women to evade the gender biases that disadvantage younger women? Contrary to intuition, is aging more detrimental for certain perceptions of male targets as compared to female targets? In light of the rapid increase of older women in the workplace, if scholars wish to have a more complete understanding of gender inequality in organizations, they ought to devote greater research attention to understanding the unique hurdles that target older female versus male workers across various contexts. In this section, we examine the

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    211 current state of disparities in labor force outcomes between older women and men, and their potential explanations.

Comparing Macro-​Level Outcome Disparities Evidence suggests that older women fare worse in the labor market than their male counterparts. Although the current generation of older women are choosing to work longer than prior ones, data suggests that the COVID-​19 pandemic was more economically devastating for older women than older men: In the first four months of the pandemic, while the unemployment rate of older men increased from 2.6% to 8.6%, the rate for older women jumped from 2.8% to 10.8% (Weller, 2021). Moreover, data suggests that the earnings gap between women and men increases steadily across the lifespan: Although 16-​to 24-​year-​old women make about 95% of what same-​aged men earn, 45-​to 64-​year-​old women only make about 78% of what same-​aged men earn (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021). This suggests that the disparities between women and men in the workplace are not the same across age groups, but rather women’s disadvantages may accumulate and compound across the lifespan. The implications for older women’s post-​retirement security are severe, as women aged 65 and above are 43% more likely to live in poverty than their older male counterparts (Boiman & Khawar, 2021). What factors cause older women and men to face such disparate outcomes in the workforce? One explanation is that older women may face higher unemployment rates because they are more likely to be in precarious work situations—​that is, more likely to occupy low-​paying and part-​time occupations (Francioli & North, 2021; Radl, 2013). Additionally, older women are more likely to have disabilities and experience daily health problems than their male counterparts (Freedman, Wolf, & Spillman, 2016; Verbrugge, 1984), which may cause older women to self-​select into part-​time work. It is also possible that older female workers are disadvantaged due to an accumulation of caregiving responsibilities across the lifespan. For example, research suggests that women who take time off work to raise children between the ages of 35 and 45, the age range in which workers are most likely to get promoted, may fall permanently behind in their careers (Granleese & Sayer, 2006; Itzin & Phillipson, 1995). Even if older women are less likely to have their own young children to care for, they are still more likely than older men to care for elderly parents, grandchildren, and unemployed children (Still & Timms, 1998). Therefore, it is unlikely that the caregiving responsibilities that disadvantage women in their younger years simply disappear with age.

Stereotyping and Prejudice In spite of strong macro-​level evidence highlighting barriers for older women, micro-​ level results are more mixed. Part of this is due to a lack of overall research attention;

212    A. Shakeri and M.S. North although there is micro-​level evidence to suggest that women face inequalities, little is known about how target age interacts with target gender to influence perceptions of workers. This dearth stems from a disproportionate emphasis on younger targets in empirical gender diversity studies, or else targets with unspecified ages altogether (Martin, North, & Phillips, 2019). For example, methodologically, scales that measure the extent of participants’ gender stereotypes (such as the ambivalent sexism inventory; Glick & Fiske, 1996) seek opinions of “women” and “men” in general (age unspecified). Theoretically, scholars posit that the root of gender stereotypes lie in factors such as the biology of sexual reproduction; however, it is unclear whether such factors strongly influence perceptions of older male and female targets. For example, although some perspectives suggest that women’s childbearing role influences how they are perceived (Glick & Fiske, 1996), it is unclear how much this influences perceptions of older women, who do not typically bear children. Overall, because gender diversity scholars tend to use a younger-​target or age-​blind lens in examining gender biases, little is known about how age interacts with gender to influence social perception.

Warmth and Competence Perceptions Extensive research has revealed that men are stereotyped as relatively competent and agentic, whereas women are stereotyped as relatively warm and communal—​a pattern which advantages male workers and disadvantages female workers in terms of hiring, employee evaluations, and allocation of work tasks (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Heilman, 2012). However, findings are mixed as to whether this pattern of warmth and competence perceptions also applies to older female and male targets. On the one hand, some evidence suggests that older women, like younger women, face heightened warmth perceptions and decreased competence perceptions relative to men their same age. Illustrating this, two studies asked participants how well older men and women fit the requirements of various domains; the results suggest that older women are viewed more positively in warmth-​related dimensions (e.g., family, friends, and nurturance) whereas older men are viewed more positively in competence-​related dimensions (e.g., finance, work, intellectual competence, and autonomy; Canetto, Kaminski, & Felicio, 1995; Kornadt, Voss, & Rothermund, 2013). Nevertheless, other studies suggest that the perceived competence gap between men and women may decrease across the lifespan. For instance, in a study examining college student’s perceptions of 25-​, 50-​, and 75-​year-​olds, researchers found that males are perceived as more “effective” and “autonomous” than females at the age of 25 and 50, but that these differences disappear for 75-​year-​old targets (O’Connell & Rotter, 1979). Further, a meta-​analysis comparing attitudes toward younger and older adults found that although older adults are rated lower in competence than younger adults, this gap in competence ratings was smaller for female, as compared to male, targets (Kite et al., 2005). Thus, overall, evidence suggests that although women may be stereotyped as consistently more warm and less competent than men across the lifespan, this gap may reduce or disappear altogether in the later life stages.

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    213

Prejudice and Stereotypes in Workplace Contexts A small number of studies have examined prejudices and stereotypes targeting older women and men in workplace-​specific settings. Once again, findings are unclear as to whether older women or men face more biases. For instance, a recent resume audit study sent 6,000 fictitious resumes to Swedish companies, varying only the age (35-​to 70-​year-​ olds) and gender of the applicants, and found that although both men and women experience a decline in callback rates with age, the decline is steeper for women (Carlsson & Eriksson, 2019). Two other studies using a similar design in Western Australia and the U.S. similarly concluded that workplace age discrimination more strongly targets women than men (Gringart & Helmes, 2001; Neumark, Burn, & Button, 2019). Moreover, these findings are consistent with interview studies in which older female employees self-​report being sexualized by male colleagues, passed for training and promotion opportunities, and not taken seriously (Duncan & Loretto, 2004; Granleese & Sayer, 2006; Jyrkinen & McKie, 2012; Moore, 2009; Walker et al., 2007). Therefore, from the viewpoint of resume audit studies and qualitative interview studies, older women (as compared to older men) may be viewed and treated more negatively in workplace contexts. However, a handful of laboratory studies measuring attitudes toward older female and male workers paint a more equivalent picture. For example, in one experimental study, participants read the transcripts of job interviews involving 25-​or 60-​year-​old male or female applicants. The researchers found no differences in participants’ perceived ability of, general attitudes toward, and likelihood of hiring the older female or male applicant (Locke-​Connor & Walsh, 1980). In another study, undergraduate participants and hiring managers from a variety of fields completed one of two versions of the Attitudes toward Older Workers Scale, one version which measured attitudes toward older women and the other toward older men; again, the researchers found no differences in attitudes toward the two types of workers (Gringart, Helmes, & Speelman, 2013). Likewise, a series of experimental studies found that older men, as compared to older women, face greater agency proscriptions across a variety of organizational contexts (Martin, North, & Phillips, 2019). Given the apparent mismatch of findings between the field and the laboratory (a common pattern in workforce ageism research in general; Murphy & DeNisi, 2021), more research is needed to determine how age and gender intersect to form prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination in the workplace.

Ageism, Sexism, and Lookism: A Workplace “Triple Jeopardy”? Much of the existing work on prejudice toward older female workers focuses on the “triple jeopardy” of ageism, sexism, and lookism. This perspective suggests that because women of all ages face higher standards of appearance compared to males, and because society equates beauty with youthfulness, older women are viewed as particularly unattractive, and thus devalued in the workplace (Francioli & North, 2019; Granleese & Sayer 2006; Handy and Davy 2007; Krekula, Nikander, & Wilińska, 2018). Although (to our knowledge) no direct empirical tests of the triple jeopardy hypothesis exist, some indirect evidence does support this perspective. For example, in interview studies,

214    A. Shakeri and M.S. North older female workers self-​report feeling pressured to engage in beauty work to appear younger and succeed in the workplace (Clarke & Griffin, 2008; Jyrkinen & McKie, 2012). Moreover, studies find that participants perceive women as reaching “old” age earlier than men; this may suggest that men’s signs of aging go comparatively overlooked, and therefore, men are penalized less for appearing older (Barrett & Von Rohr, 2008; Itzin & Phillipson, 1995). Others have suggested that features such as gray hair and wrinkles may represent wisdom and maturity for men, but cognitive decline for women (Dinnerstein & Weitz, 1994). Indeed, one study found that looking older connotes higher status for men than for women (Öberg & Tornstam, 2003). However, other researchers have theorized that aging may cause women to elude lookism. This perspective suggests that after a certain age, women no longer believe it is possible to look stereotypically youthful and attractive, and thus no longer feel pressured to fulfill society’s expectations of beauty (Isopahkala-​Bouret, 2017; Montemurro & Gillen, 2013; Trethewey, 2001). Moreover, researchers posit that after a certain age, female employees are no longer viewed as sexual targets valued for their attractiveness, but are instead valued for their competence, professional authority, and credibility in the workplace (Isopahkala-​Bouret, 2017). A few interview and self-​report studies support this perspective, finding that some older women workers feel less judged according to their appearances as they grow older (Isopahkala-​Bouret, 2017; Tretheway, 2001), and feel more content with their bodies as they age (Montemurro & Gillen, 2013). In summary, according to existing research, there is no simple answer to the question of whether older women or older men face more stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination in the workplace. Although discrepancies in warmth and competence stereotypes between men and women seem to persist across the life span, these discrepancies may decrease over time. Although resume audit studies and interview studies suggest that older women face higher levels of discrimination than older men, controlled experimental studies comparing attitudes toward older male and female workers do not find differences in attitudes. And although some older women report “lookism” in the workplace, others characterize aging as an empowering experience which fosters greater self-​acceptance. Clearly, more research is needed to resolve these conflicting findings. To this end, we now discuss several research questions and theoretical perspectives that scholars ought to consider in future studies of age and gender intersectionality in the workplace.

Future Research Directions, Toward Resolving Inconsistencies Do Age Stereotypes Outweigh Gender Stereotypes after a Certain Age? First, scholars should explore the possibility that a target’s age shapes how they are perceived more strongly than their gender after a certain life stage, causing stereotypes

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    215 of men and women converge over the lifespan. One reason for why age may more strongly impact social perception than gender in later life is that older men and women occupy similar social roles—​more so than earlier in life. According to social role theory, stereotypes (e.g., women as communal, men as agentic) originate from the roles groups occupy (e.g., women as caretakers, men as professionals; Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Koenig & Eagly, 2014). However, it is likely that as both genders exit the workforce later in life, the caretaker-​breadwinner dichotomy becomes less stark, causing stereotypes toward these groups to converge over time. In support of this perspective, some lifespan development researchers have theorized that as older men and women exit younger gender roles, they are stereotyped as less masculine and feminine, respectively (Gutmann, 1978; Lemaster, Delaney, & Strough, 2017; McGee & Wells, 1982; Montepare & Zebrowitz, 1998; Silver, 2003; Sinnott, 1984). Moreover, age may become a more salient marker for social categorization over time because the physical features of aging (e.g., gray hair, wrinkles, loss of color of skin, loss of teeth, changes in facial structure, and expanding waistlines; Rhodes, 2009; Van Wicklin, 2020) affects both older men and women, and may cause perceivers to more readily categorize older adults as “old” than as “male” or “female.” For example, one study asked participants to categorize faces of various ages and genders according to their sex as quickly as possible, and found that participants are quicker to categorize the gender of younger as compared to older faces (Quinn and Macrae, 2005). The authors concluded that facial changes during aging minimize sex differences in appearance, causing sex categorization of older to be more difficult as a result. A few other studies support the idea that attitudes toward men and women converge across a target’s lifespan. One study asked younger and older adults to list qualities that describe a younger or older male or female, and found that participants describe same-​age targets more similarly than same-​gender targets (Kite, Deaux, & Miele, 1991). Another study asked participants to indicate the extent to which various adjectives (e.g., wise, neat, optimistic) apply to women and men who are 65–​74, 75–​99, and 100 and over, and found that as target groups increased in age, the number of differences due to the sex of the targets decreased (Sanders et al., 1984). Likewise, in a different investigation, participants listened to voice clips of young–​old and old–​old men and women; while young–​old female voices were associated with more positive stereotypes than young–​ old male voices, there were no significant differences in ratings of old–​old female and old–​old male voices (Hummert et al., 1999). Ultimately, organizational researchers should explore the possibility that age becomes a more salient dimension of perception than gender in later life, and whether the gender biases which disadvantage younger female workers diminish with age as a result.

Does the “Invisible” Older Woman Experience “Intersectional Escape”? In addition, researchers may explore whether older women, relative to older men, are less visible in organizational settings, and unearth the positive and negative

216    A. Shakeri and M.S. North consequences thereof. Theories on intersectional invisibility suggest that individuals who are members of two subordinate social groups are less likely to be recognized as prototypical members of either social group, and therefore go unnoticed (Purdie-​ Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). For example, research suggests that Black women, who are non-​prototypical members of their racial and gender identity groups, are more likely to have their speech mistaken for someone else (Sesko & Biernat, 2010) and are more easily overlooked and disregarded in the workplace (Smith et al., 2019). It is possible that this logic also applies to the older female workers, who are unlikely to be prototypical members of their age category and their gender category, and who may thus similarly be rendered “invisible” in the workplace. In addition, older women are also largely absent in mainstream society—​they are underrepresented in comparison to their proportion in the population in films (Bazzini et al., 1997), television series (Kessler, Rakoczy, & Staudinger, 2004), magazines (Raman et al., 2008), advertisements (Baumann & de Laat, 2012) and children’s cartoons and books (Vasil & Wass, 1993). On one hand, there are clear negative consequences to being invisible in the workplace. In fact, older female (versus male) workers report more frequently engaging in anti-​aging practices, such as hair dying and cosmetic surgery, in order to avoid being overlooked for promotion and training opportunities and not having their voices heard (Clarke & Griffin, 2008; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2003; Jyrkinen & McKie, 2012; Tretheway, 2001). On the other hand, race and gender intersectionality research has shown that members of two subordinate categories may face fewer prescriptive stereotypes and in turn backlash, and some research evidence suggests that the same applies to older women. For example, studies have found that Black women evade agency prescriptions and agentic backlash (Livingston, Rosette, & Washington, 2012; Rosette et al., 2016), and a recent study found that older women also elude the agency prescriptions and backlash that typically target older men and younger women (Martin, North, & Phillips, 2019). Another recent study asked participants to rate the degree to which various prescriptive stereotypes apply to men and women of different life stages. The results suggested that older men, as compared to older women, face a greater number of prescriptive and proscriptive stereotypes: Whereas older men were prescribed to be agentic, intelligent, and have masculine interests, and were proscribed from being weak, having a feminine appearance, and having feminine toys, older women were prescribed only to be communal (Koenig, 2018). Altogether, future research should explore additional ways in which older women workers may both benefit and suffer from intersectional invisibility.

Are Older Men the Primary Targets of Age-​Related Resource Competition? Another future research hypothesis is societal: Older women may be viewed as less threatening because they hold less power and hold fewer resources than their male counterparts. Realistic group conflict theory posits that prejudice between groups

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    217 results from competition over resources (Sherif et al., 1988). Building on this idea, the Succession, Identity, and Consumption (SIC) theory of ageism suggests that younger adult’s prejudice toward older adults partly stems from their envy that older adults possess valuable societal resources such as disproportionately large political power, desirable work positions, and a majority of societal wealth (North & Fiske, 2012, 2013). Research suggests that younger adults prescribe the older generation to relinquish these resources (such as by retiring to open work positions for younger adults), and harbor prejudicial attitudes toward those older adults who do not do so. Although SIC theory did not initially offer predictions about how prescriptive stereotypes related to succession might differentially target older men versus women, one study has indicated that prescriptive stereotypes related to ceding power and resources more strongly targets older men than older women, such that older men garner more polarized reactions due to their greater perceived resource threat (Martin, North, & Phillips, 2019). Nonetheless, there remain some unanswered questions on this topic, such as precisely why older men are perceived as greater threats to resources. Potentially offering clues to this riddle are societal factors—​specifically, older men being the ones who hold the most valuable societal resources. For example, whereas 38% of the current U.S. Congress is made up of men aged 60 or older, women of the same age group occupy only 14% of seats (LegiStorm, 2022). In the corporate domain, although Fortune 500 CEOs tend to be older adults (with an average age of 58 years old), only 15% of these CEOs are women (Buchholz, 2022; Freyman, 2020). In the domain of wealth, older women are significantly more likely to live in poverty than their male counterparts, regardless of race, educational background, and marital status (Morrissey, 2016). From this standpoint, there is reason to believe that older men may face the greatest resentment and resource-​related prejudice, because they, more so than older women, hold enviable resources and power in society.

Does Aging Damage Perceptions of Men’s Masculinity? Another potential avenue of unpacking age-​gender intersectionality explores how perceptions of masculinity and femininity change across a target’s lifespan, and how this affects person perception. In particular, research may explore the possibility that perceived masculinity diminishes with age, thereby damaging men’s perceived value. The “double standard of aging” perspective suggests that aging has different effects on the perceptions of men and women. Accordingly, aging is typically associated with positive outcomes such as fame, money, and power for men; by contrast, it is associated with lowered attractiveness for older women, causing devalued perceptions (Granleese & Sayer, 2006; Sontag, 1978). However, other theories posit that aging can be a particularly damaging experience for men, because certain features which are central components of the male stereotype decrease with age (Hearn, 1995; Krekula, 2007; Robbins, Wester, & McKean, 2016). For example, although masculinity connotes power, dominance, and control, aging is associated with physical weakness, dependency, and increased

218    A. Shakeri and M.S. North need for services. Whereas men are expected to be successful, competent breadwinners exhibiting sexual prowess, by contrast, aging might imply retirement, incompetence, and sexual performance difficulties. Given that men are rewarded for “manliness” and punished for not appearing manly (Moss-​Racusin, Phelan, & Rudman, 2010), it is probable that aging diminishes perceptions of men as they age and thus fail to fulfill these expectations. In contrast, aging may present a less damaging effect on perceptions of women’s femininity. Women are rewarded for adhering to features of femininity such as having a family or caretaking orientation, and being in tune with other’s feelings, elegant and well-​behaved, attractive, and interested in men (Helgeson, 1994; Richmond et al., 2015). Although aging probably does not enhance perceptions of each dimension of femininity (such as attractiveness), there is reason to believe that older women naturally adhere to many of these expectations—​at least more so than older men tend to adhere to manliness expectations. In fact, research shows that one of the most common elder subtypes is that of the “grandmother,” which connotes serenity, calmness, caring, and family orientation (Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981)—​all of which are features that align well with femininity. Broadly, there is reason to believe that aging is associated with certain qualities that allow older women to adhere to many of the stereotypical expectations of what women should be like. Future research studies can test the competing hypotheses that aging brings relatively more benefits to men (as compared to women) because aging is associated with fame, money, and power, versus that aging is particularly damaging to perceptions of men’s manliness, agency, and strength.

Does the Older Female Employee “Survivor” Garner Respect and Admiration? A final future research trajectory might explore the possibility that older female workers garner extra respect, admiration, and attention from their colleagues for persisting despite all the difficulties associated with being a woman in the workplace. Older women in the workplace may be perceived as “survivors” or “heroes.” With diversity, equity, and inclusion stepping to the forefront of organizational and media efforts, most individuals are aware of the various challenges that prevent women from remaining and succeeding in the workplace, including motherhood penalties, prejudice and stereotypes, and sexual harassment. Therefore, it is possible that older working women would come to be seen as particularly competent, having beaten the odds and persisted in the workplace into their later years. Thus, future studies might explore whether older women are perceived as more deserving of their workplace successes for having overcome so many barriers during their working years. Finally, counter to the idea that older women are rendered invisible in the workplace, because it is so rare to see older women occupying powerful roles in society, older women may actually garner more attention in the workplace. In other words, perceivers might be surprised to encounter a successful older

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    219 female worker, particularly if she is in a top leadership position, and thus may be curious to benefit from her knowledge and experience.

Conclusion Older women today are working increasingly more than any other generation of older women in the past. Now more than ever, it is important to understand the challenges that may prevent this group from advancing in the workplace, and in particular, the prejudice and stereotypes that may hinder this group’s success. Nevertheless, existing literature on workplace age and gender intersectionality presents mixed findings in terms of whether older women always face greater hurdles than older men. Given this, this chapter presents promising avenues to guide research on this timely topic, toward stronger theoretical perspectives and definitive conclusions. Instead of assuming that older female workers are always at greater risk for prejudice and discrimination than their male counterparts, future research should consider certain circumstances in which women’s conditions in the workplace may actually improve throughout the lifespan, and ultimately, how organizations can utilize an aging workforce that is also increasingly gender-​diverse.

References Abel, A.L., & Lim, D. (2018, June 6). Why retaining older women in the workforce will help the U.S. economy. Knowledge@Wharton. https://​knowle​dge.whar​ton.upenn.edu/​arti​cle/​retain​ ing-​older-​women-​workfo​rce-​will-​help-​u-​s-​econ​omy/​ Barrett, A. E., & Von Rohr, C. (2008). Gendered perceptions of aging: An examination of college students. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 67(4), 359–​ 386. https://​doi.org/​10.2190/​AG.67.4.d Baumann, S., & de Laat, K. (2012). Socially defunct: A comparative analysis of the underrepresentation of older women in advertising. Poetics, 40(6), 514–​541. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1016/​j.poe​tic.2012.08.002 Bazzini, D. G., McIntosh, W. D., Smith, S. M., Cook, S., & Harris, C. (1997). The aging woman in popular film: Underrepresented, unattractive, unfriendly, and unintelligent. Sex Roles, 36(7), 531–​543. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​2766​689 Boiman, T., & Khawar, A. (2021, August 30). 5 Things to know about women and retirement. U.S. Department of Labor Blog. https://​blog.dol.gov/​2021/​08/​30/​5-​thi​ngs-​to-​know-​about-​ women-​and-​ret​irem​ent Brewer, M. B., Dull, V., & Lui, L. (1981). Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 656–​670. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​ 0022-​3514.41.4.656 Buchholz, K. (2022, March 10). How has the number of female CEOs in Fortune 500 companies changed over the last 20 years? World Economic Forum. https://​www.wefo​rum.org/​age​nda/​ 2022/​03/​ceos-​fort​une-​500-​compan​ies-​fem​ale

220    A. Shakeri and M.S. North Canetto, S. S., Kaminski, P. L., & Felicio, D. M. (1995). Typical and optimal aging in women and men: Is there a double standard? The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 40(3), 187–​207. https://​doi.org/​10.2190/​RX0U-​T56B-​1G0F-​266U Carlsson, M., & Eriksson, S. (2019). Age discrimination in hiring decisions: Evidence from a field experiment in the labor market. Labour Economics, 59, 173–​183. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.lab​eco.2019.03.002 Clarke, L., & Griffin, M. (2008). Visible and invisible ageing: Beauty work as a response to ageism. Ageing and Society, 28(5), 653–​674. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S01446​86X0​7007​003 Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 73–​98. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.riob.2011.10.004 Dinnerstein, M., & Weitz, R. (1994). Jane Fonda, Barbara Bush and other aging bodies: Femininity and the limits of resistance. Feminist Issues 14, 3–​24. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​BF0​2685​654 Duncan, C., & Loretto, W. (2004). Never the right age? Gender and age-​based discrimination in employment. Gender, Work & Organization, 11(1), 95–​115. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​ j.1468-​0432.2004.00222.x Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–​754. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022-​3514.46.4.735 Francioli, S. P., & North, M. S. (2021). The older worker: Gender and age discrimination in the workplace. In Schaie, K. W. & Willis, S. L. (Eds.), Handbook of the Psychology of Aging (pp. 215–​ 235). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​B978-​0-​12-​816​ 094-​7.00013-​1 Freedman, V. A., Wolf, D. A., & Spillman, B. C. (2016). Disability-​free life expectancy over 30 years: A growing female disadvantage in the US population. American Journal of Public Health, 106(6), 1079–​1085. https://​doi.org/​10.2105/​AJPH.2016.303​089 Freyman, N. (2020, February 2). The average age of Fortune 500 CEOs has increased recently. Morning Brew. https://​www.morn​ingb​rew.com/​daily/​stor​ies/​2020/​02/​02/​aver​age-​age-​fort​ une-​500-​ceos-​increa​sed-​recen​tly Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–​512. https://​ https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0022-​3514.70.3.491 Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2017). Women working longer: Facts and some explanations. National Bureau of Economic Research. Granleese, J., & Sayer, G. (2006). Gendered ageism and “lookism”: A triple jeopardy for female academics. Women in Management Review, 21(6), 500–​517. https://​doi.org/​10.1108/​096494​ 2061​0683​480 Gringart, E., & Helmes, E. (2001). Age discrimination in hiring practices against older adults in Western Australia: The case of accounting assistants. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 20(1), 23–​28. https://​doi-​org.proxy.libr​ary.nyu.edu/​10.1111/​j.1741-​6612.2001.tb00​345.x Gringart, E., Helmes, E., & Speelman, C. (2013). Development of a measure of stereotypical attitudes towards older workers. Australian Psychologist, 48(2), 110–​118. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​j.1742-​9544.2011.00024.x Gutmann, D. L. (1978, February). Personal transformations in the post-​parental period: A cross-​cultural view. Meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [Paper presentation]. Washington, D. C.

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    221 Halliwell, E., Dittmar, H. (2003). A qualitative investigation of women’s and men’s body image concerns and their attitudes toward aging. Sex Roles 49, 675–​684. https://​doi.org/​10.1023/​ B:SERS.000​0003​137.71080.97 Handy, J., & Davy, D. (2007). Gendered ageism: Older women’s experiences of employment agency practices. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45(1), 85–​99. https://​doi-​org/​ 10.1177/​10384​1110​7073​606 Hearn, J. (1995). Imaging the aging of men. In Featherstone, M. & Wernick, A. (Eds.) Images of aging: Cultural representations of later life (pp. 97–​115). London: Routledge. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–​135. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.riob.2012.11.003 Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 189–​198. doi:10.1037/​0021-​9010.93.1.189 Helgeson, V.S. (1994). Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 653–​682. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​1544​286 Hummert, M. L., Mazloff, D., & Henry, C. (1999). Vocal characteristics of older adults and stereotyping. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(2), 111–​132. https://​doi.org/​10.1023/​A:102148​ 3409​296 Isopahkala-​Bouret, U. (2017). “It’s a great benefit to have gray hair!”: The intersection of gender, aging, and visibility in midlife professional women’s narratives. Journal of Women & Aging, 29(3), 267–​277. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​08952​841.2016.1142​773 Itzin, C., & Phillipson, C. (1995). Gendered ageism: a double jeopardy for women in organizations. In Itzin, C. & Newman, J. (Eds.), Gender, culture and organizational change: Putting theory into practice (pp. 81–​90). London: Routledge. Jyrkinen, M., & McKie, L. (2012). Gender, age and ageism: experiences of women managers in Finland and Scotland. Work, Employment and Society, 26(1), 61–​77. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​ 09500​1701​1426​313 Kessler, E., Rakoczy, K., & Staudinger, U. (2004). The portrayal of older people in prime time television series: The match with gerontological evidence. Ageing and Society, 24(4), 531–​552. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S01446​86X0​4002​338 Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Miele, M. (1991). Stereotypes of young and old: Does age outweigh gender? Psychology and Aging, 6(1), 19–​27. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0882-​7974.6.1.19 Kite, M. E., Stockdale, G. D., Whitley, B. E., & Johnson, B. T. (2005). Attitudes toward younger and older adults: An updated meta-​analytic review. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 241–​266. https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​j.1540-​4560.2005.00404.x Koenig, A. M. (2018). Comparing prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes about children, adults, and the elderly. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. https://​www.fron​tier​sin.org/​arti​cle/​ 10.3389/​fpsyg.2018.01086 Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–​392. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1037/​a0037​215 Kornadt, A. E., Voss, P., & Rothermund, K. (2013). Multiple standards of aging: Gender-​specific age stereotypes in different life domains. European Journal of Ageing, 10(4), 335–​344. https://​ doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​433-​013-​0281-​9 Krekula, C. (2007). The intersection of age and gender: Reworking gender theory and social gerontology. Current Sociology, 55(2), 155–​171. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​00113​9210​7073​299

222    A. Shakeri and M.S. North Krekula, C., Nikander, P., & Wilińska, M. (2018). Multiple marginalizations based on age. Gendered ageism and beyond. In Ayalon, L., & Tesch-​Roemer, C. (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism (pp. 33–​50). NY: Springer Publisher. Kulik, C. T., Ryan, S., Harper, S., & George, G. (2014). Aging populations and management. Academy of Management Journal, 57(4), 929–​935. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.5465/​amj.2014.4004 LegiStorm (2022). Congress by the Numbers. Legistorm.com. https://​www.legist​orm.com/​cong​ ress​_​by_​numb​ers.html Lemaster, P., Delaney, R., & Strough, J. (2017). Crossover, degendering, or . . . ? A multidimensional approach to life-​span gender development. Sex Roles, 76, 669–​681. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1007/​s11​199-​015-​0563-​0 Livingston, R. W., Rosette, A. S., & Washington, E. F. (2012). Can an agentic Black woman get ahead? The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. Psychological Science, 23(4), 354–​358. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​09567​9761​1428​079 Locke-​Connor, C., & Walsh, R. P. (1980). Attitudes toward the older job applicant: Just as competent, but more likely to fail. Journal of Gerontology, 35(6), 920–​927. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​ ger​onj/​35.6.920 Martin, A. E., North, M. S., & Phillips, K. W. (2019). Intersectional escape: Older women elude agentic prescriptions more than older men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3), 342–​359. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6721​8784​895 McGee, J., & Wells, K. (1982). Gender typing and androgyny in later life. Human Development, 25(2), 116–​139. https://​doi.org/​10.1159/​000272​792 Montemurro, B., & Gillen, M. M. (2013). Wrinkles and sagging flesh: Exploring transformations in women’s sexual body image. Journal of Women & Aging, 25(1), 3–​23. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1080/​08952​841.2012.720​179 Montepare, J. M., & Zebrowitz, L. A. (1998). Person perception comes of age: The salience and significance of age in social judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 93–​161). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ S0065-​2601(08)60383-​4 Moore, S. (2009). ‘No matter what I did I would still end up in the same position’: age as a factor defining older women’s experience of labour market participation. Work, Employment and Society, 23(4), 655–​671. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​09500​1700​9344​871 Morrissey, M. (2016, March 8). Women over 65 are more likely to be poor than men, regardless of race, educational background, and marital status. Economic Policy Institute. https://​www. epi.org/​publ​icat​ion/​women-​over-​65-​are-​more-​lik​ely-​to-​in-​pove​rty-​than-​men/​ Moss-​Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). When men break the gender rules: Status incongruity and backlash against modest men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 11(2), 140–​151. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1037/​a0018​093 Murphy, K.R., & DeNisi, A.S. (2021). Do age stereotypes predict personnel decisions? The state of the evidence. Work, Aging and Retirement, 8(4), 323–​330. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​wor​kar/​ waab​019 Neumark, D., Burn, I., & Button, P. (2019). Is it harder for older workers to find jobs? New and improved evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 127(2), 922–​970. https://​doi.org/​10.1086/​701​029 North, M. S. (2019). A GATE to understanding “older” workers: Generation, age, tenure, experience. Academy of Management Annals, 13(2), 414–​443. https://​doi-​org/​10.5465/​ann​ als.2017.0125

Always at Greater Risk for More Discrimination?    223 North, M.S. & Shakeri, A. (2019). Workplace subjective age multidimensionality: Generation, Age, Tenure, Experience (GATE). Work, Aging and Retirement, 5(4), 281–​286. https://​doi. org/​10.1093/​wor​kar/​waz​020 North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin, 138(5), 982–​997. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​ a0027​843 North, M. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2013). Act your (old) age: Prescriptive, ageist biases over succession, consumption, and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(6), 720–​734. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​01461​6721​3480​043 Öberg, P., & Tornstam, L. (2003). Attitudes toward embodied old age among Swedes. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 56(2), 133–​153. https://​doi.org/​ 10.2190/​CDGJ-​6WFA-​HXA2-​X967 O’Connell, A. N., & Rotter, N. G. (1979). The influence of stimulus age and sex on person perception. Journal of Gerontology, 34(2), 220–​228. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​ger​onj/​34.2.220 Purdie-​ Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-​group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–​ 391. https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s11​199-​008-​9424-​4 Quinn, K. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). Categorizing others: The dynamics of person construal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 467–​479. Doi:10.1037/​0022-​3514.88.3.467 Radl, J. (2013). Labour market exit and social stratification in Western Europe: The effects of social class and gender on the timing of retirement. European Sociological Review, 29(3), 654–​ 668. https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​esr/​jcs​045 Raman, P., Harwood, J., Weis, D., Anderson, J. L., & Miller, G. (2008). Portrayals of older adults in U.S. and Indian magazine advertisements: A cross-​cultural comparison. Howard Journal of Communications, 19(3), 221–​240. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​106461​7080​2218​214 Rhodes, M. G. (2009). Age estimation of faces: A review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 1–​12. https://​doi-​org./​10.1002/​acp.1442 Richmond, K., Levant, R., Smalley, B., & Cook, S. (2015). The Femininity Ideology Scale (FIS): Dimensions and its relationship to anxiety and feminine gender role stress. Women & Health, 55(3), 263–​279. https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​03630​242.2014.996​723 Robbins, M. J., Wester, S. R., & McKean, N. B. (2016). Masculinity across the life span: Implications for older men. In Y. J. Wong & S. R. Wester (Eds.), APA handbook of men and masculinities (pp. 389–​409). American Psychological Association. https://​doi.org/​ 10.1037/​14594-​018 Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. Special Issue: Gender and Leadership, 27(3), 429–​445. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.lea​qua.2016.01.008 Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–​79. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.riob.2008.04.003 Sanders, G. F., Montgomery, J. E., Pittman, J. F., & Balkwell, C. (1984). Youth’s attitudes toward the elderly. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 3(1), 59–​70. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​073​3464​8840​ 0300​107 Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 356–​360. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.jesp.2009.10.016

224    A. Shakeri and M.S. North Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Silver, C. B. (2003). Gendered identities in old age: Toward (de)gendering? Journal of Aging Studies, 17(4), 379–​397. https://​doi.org/​10.1016/​S0890-​4065(03)00059-​8 Sinnott, J.D. (1984). Older men, older women: Are their perceived sex roles similar? Sex Roles 10, 847–​856 . https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​0288​508 Smith, A. N., Watkins, M. B., Ladge, J. J., & Carlton, P. (2019). Making the invisible visible: Paradoxical effects of intersectional invisibility on the career experiences of executive Black women. Academy of Management Journal, 62, 1705–​1734. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.5465/​ amj.2017.1513 Sontag, S. (1978). The double standard of ageing. In Carver, I., & Liddiard, P. (Eds.) An ageing population: A reader and sourcebook (pp. 72–​80). Suffolk: Hodder and Stoughton in association with the Open University Press. Still, L., & Timms, W. (1998). Career barriers and the older woman manager. Women in Management Review, 13(4), 143–​155. https://​doi.org/​10.1108/​096494​2981​0219​754 Toossi, M., & Torpey, E. (2017, May). Older workers: Labor force trends and career options. Career Outlook: Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://​www.bls.gov/​career​outl​ook/​2017/​arti​cle/​ older-​work​ers.htm Trethewey, A. (2001). Reproducing and resisting the master narrative of decline: Midlife professional women’s experiences of aging. Management Communication Quarterly, 15(2), 183–​ 226. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​08933​1890​1152​002 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021, September). Highlights of women’s earnings in 2020. https://​www.bls.gov/​opub/​repo​rts/​wom​ens-​earni​ngs/​2020/​home.htm Van Wicklin, S. A. (2020). Changes as the body ages. Plastic and Aesthetic Nursing, 40(4), 189–​ 192. https://​doi.org/​10.1097/​PSN.00000​0000​0000​339 Vasil, L., & Wass, H. (1993). Portrayal of the elderly in the media: A literature review and implications for educational gerontologists. Educational Gerontology, 19(1), 71–​85. https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​03601​2793​0190​107 Verbrugge, L. M. (1984). A health profile of older women with comparisons to older men. Research on Aging, 6(3), 291–​322. https://​doi.org/​10.1177/​0164​0275​8400​6003​001 Walker, H., Grant, D., Meadows, M., & Cook, I. (2007). Women’s experiences and perceptions of age discrimination in employment: Implications for research and policy. Social Policy and Society, 6(1), 37–​48. https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S14747​4640​6003​320 Weller, C. (2021, May 11). Many older workers left out of labor market recovery. Forbes. https://​ www.for​bes.com/​sites/​chri​stia​nwel​ler/​2021/​05/​11/​many-​older-​work​ers-​left-​out-​of-​labor-​ mar​ket-​recov​ery/​?sh=​582ea​c862​678

chapter 15

Why We Sti l l Hav e Ge ndered Organi z at i ona l Pro gressi on of I ndividual s i nto Leadership Rol e s a nd What Can B e D one ab ou t I t Terrance W. Fitzsimmons, Victor J. Callan, Miriam S. Yates, and Ree Jordan

Gender disparity in the number of female CEOs, alongside dwindling pipelines of women into executive roles, are significant issues for business and society. In 2022 there are only 6.2% women CEOs leading organizations in the S&P500 (Catalyst, 2022), 5% in the ASX200 (ASX, 2022) and 5% in the FTSE250 (Statista, 2022). In fact, there is no country in the world where women represent more than 10% of CEOs in their largest corporations. Despite ongoing media attention, growing academic evidence around increased profitability for firms with gender diverse executive teams (Cassells & Duncan, 2020) and growing pressure by investors and regulators to increase women’s representation in senior leadership (Nichols & Erakovic, 2013), relatively few women are reaching executive ranks. In this chapter, we argue that valuable career capital required to obtain senior leadership roles is privileged to a small minority of individuals who fit an implicit concept of the ideal corporate leader (Pinnington & Sandberg, 2013). In Western organizations, this ideal leader is traditionally seen as someone who works long hours, takes no career breaks, contributes above and beyond their peers, is highly competent in critical

226    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan business areas, is available at all hours and is willing to relocate to new and often remote locations to develop their capabilities (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016a). In these contexts, identification of those who make these obvious personal sacrifices for the organization is simple (Williams, 2000). However less observable, and far more complex, are the factors which preclude others, who may also wish to progress to leadership positions.

Leaders and Leadership Before examining the relational framework we use to examine why women are disproportionately excluded from acquiring the capitals deemed necessary for senior leadership, it is worth briefly examining what leadership development entails. Day and his colleagues (2014: 78) hold that “leadership is a complex interaction between people and environments that emerges through social systems.” Conger (2004) further notes that effective leadership development comprises an array of activities and experiences. These include, but are not limited to, job assignments, mentoring, 360-​ degree feedback reviews and particularly challenging projects or life experiences and training when purposefully framed as action learning. In short, leadership development is anything that builds upon the capacity of an individual to be effective in leading others in a particular context (Day & Drogoni, 2015), however, McCall (2010) argues that, of the various developmental tools, on the job experience is the most critical. Day and his colleagues (2014: 78) note that occupational roles and developmental challenges change over time, so that developmental opportunities operate in “a dynamic process, involving multiple iterations that persist over time.” Additionally, they identified that the development of some leadership skills become more important at different times during a career. Progression is predicated upon cumulative skill development. Day and Dragoni (2015) further identified that some leadership skills are foundational and upon which other skills are built. To be successful, leaders need to develop and apply skills appropriate at the time to the level and specific context of their leadership. Should they miss out on these opportunities, their progression will be severely inhibited, if not completely stalled.

Bourdieu’s Relational Model In understanding the drivers of gender inequality in senior leadership roles, we turn to relational models of inequality. These models propose that without understanding the complex interactions of organizational and social systems in which leadership is developed and enacted, current approaches to leadership development by organizations will do little more than perpetuate the status quo in leadership roles (Acker, 2006; Bourdieu, 1990). Relational models move beyond the position that discrimination is

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    227 personal and intentional, to suggest that structures created and perpetuated in fields, and deeply entrenched in social practices, are responsible for gender disparity in leadership. Bourdieu’s (1990) relational framework was devised to interrogate how stratified social systems, typified by hierarchy and the domination of one societal fraction by another, could reproduce in each generation without any widespread resistance (Lane, 2000). Bourdieu’s framework was designed to make visible the relationships between personally held capitals, their value to a given field and the habitus, or lived experience, of the participants who generate this capital. Bourdieu (1990) argued that the greater the degree of alignment between the capital possessed within the habitus of an individual, and that which is valued by the field, will determine the success of its possessor in that field (Grenfell, 2008). Importantly, Bourdieu noted that field, capital and habitus are relational, interdependent and co-​constructed with none of them primary, dominant or causal (Thompson, 2008). Hence, one cannot consider capital independently of the field and habitus. In relation to the corporate field, elites such as high-​profile board members, government regulators, politicians, stock exchanges, business media, and educational and accreditation bodies all play a role in determining and perpetuating the volume and the structure of the capitals which are considered most valuable in senior corporate roles. Individual board chairs of organizations and executive recruiters apply these criteria directly in their decisions about the appointment and progression of senior leaders (Zajac & Westphal, 1996). In applying these criteria, their primary objective is to identify the most suitable cultural, economic, social, and symbolic capitals (see Figure 15.1)1 to address the challenges currently facing the firm in its strategic context, and for the market to recognize that this has been done well (Tian, Haleblian, & Rajagopalan, 2011). We offer a guiding relational model using a Bourdieusian (1990) conception of leadership and leadership development, to display the iterative nature of capital acquisition and its relationship to field and habitus. In the following sections we propose how each element plays its role in reproducing gender inequality in leadership roles. This capital perspective offers a novel conceptualization of why gender bias continues to exist in leadership identification and development.

Capital Bourdieu (1977: 178) stated that capital represents “all goods, material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social formation.” Capital encompasses all forms of power regardless of whether they are material, cultural, social or symbolic, as long as they can be drawn

1 

I would like to acknowledge and thank my wife Michelle Fitzsimmons for drafting the figures in this chapter into Publisher.

228    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan

Figure 15.1  Bourdieu’s relational framework in relation to senior leader capital adapted from Fitzsimmons and Callan (2020)

upon to maintain or improve an individual’s position within a particular field. Bourdieu (1977: 114–​115) noted that “dominant symbolic systems [of capital] provide integration for dominant groups, distinction and hierarchies for ranking groups and legitimating of social ranking by encouraging the dominated to accept the existing hierarchies of social distinction.” At stake in any field is the accumulation of valuable capitals. That is to say, those capitals which are considered to be of greatest value in progressing to the top of any field (Thompson, 2008). Additionally, Bourdieu (1990) held that each form of capital—​cultural, material (economic), social or symbolic could be exchanged. For example, economic capital in the form of cash can be converted by an aspiring leader into cultural capital in the form of completing an MBA degree. Cultural capital aligns closely to the concept of human capital, which comprises knowledge, skills, job experience, abilities, self-​ concepts and identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Bourdieu’s (1990) conception of cultural capital also incorporates the idea of a distinctive or privileged understanding of how capital is valued in different fields and is linked to how the environment of an individual’s upbringing, or class habitus, influences their knowledge and decision-​making. Class capital is therefore acquired early in life, mainly through an individual’s immediate family, and refined into cultural capital through formal education, and later through ongoing experiences both inside and outside of the workforce (see Figure 15.1). Through this process, the individual

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    229 acquires ways of thinking, appreciation, and voice in how they present themselves to the world (McRobbie, 2004). Economic capital is essentially material wealth and can be readily exchanged for both cultural and social capital, while social capital is the network of social contacts which can be accessed to influence a person’s position in the field, coupled with the ability to understand how to best apply these contacts (Burke, 2016). The value social capital depends upon the relative position of the social contact in the field of interest to the individual (Ibarra, 1993). Those who already share a privileged cultural habitus will be advantaged in the frequency and particularly the quality of those social introductions (Rivera & Tilcsik, 2016) whereby an elite education may provide access upon graduation to a network of highly placed alumni. Therefore, certain networks and memberships grant access to higher levels of social capital which may be exchanged for access to higher quality job experiences, introductions, and opportunities to develop more valuable cultural capital in an accelerating upward spiral. Symbolic capital is derived from combinations of large volumes of the other three forms of valuable capital relative to a particular field, in a form of resonance effect (see Figure 15.1). Those in possession of symbolic capital are overtly recognized as being expert or as having a privileged understanding of the field (Swartz, 1997). Critically, to be recognized in this way also confers “the power to recognize and to consecrate . . . what merits being known and recognized,” thus perpetuating what is considered to be valuable in the field (Bourdieu, 2000: 242). Possessors of symbolic capital are also most likely to be invited onto prestigious corporate boards, industry panels and regulatory committees, both public and private (Maclean, Harvey, & Kling, 2017), thereby inducting them into what Bourdieu termed the field of power (see Figure 15.1). It is the field of power that determines and maintains the structure of any field and the capitals considered most valuable to progress within it.

Field Fields are socially structured spaces that are organized around a hierarchy of specific types and combinations of capital where distinct sets of rules and practices enable people to implicitly “know their place” within the hierarchy of positions in any field (Bourdieu, 1977: 82). Fields, such as the corporate field, are arenas where the struggle for legitimation of particular volumes and structures of capital occur (Swartz, 1997). The field of corporate positions is a hierarchical power ranking of workers, front line/​ team leaders, unit leaders, division leaders and so on, each having positional power over the level below. As Day and Harrison (2007: 364) note, each has “inordinate impact on shaping the climate and practice for leadership development.” Each position can provide developmental opportunities and experiences for those below them, but who receives these opportunities is often bounded and regulated by the structures and prescriptions set by the field of power. An individual’s relative position (or “place”) in the field is determined by the quantity of valuable capital they possess. Agents in any

230    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan given field compete for sources of capital with each other in order to rise through the field of positions. Reciprocally, any individual, organization or institution which can influence or is influenced by this distribution of capital is considered to be within the field. In other words, the capital required to progress as a leader is determined by forces both inside and outside of the organization. Further, each individual and institution within the field has a relationship with the “field of power” (Reed-​Danahay, 2005). The field of power (see Figure 15.1) refers to the ultimate source of power in a given social context to produce, interpret or enforce the law, regulation, values or customs in a field (Grenfell, 2008). The field of power comprises the architects and regulators of the structures of the field. It is the field of power which determines the “rules of the game” or the codification of what are considered authentic and acceptable practices within the field (Hilgers & Mangez, 2015). Due to the symbolic capital which individuals in the field of power command, the rules of the game are more strictly applied the further one progresses through the hierarchy of positions toward senior leadership roles. Ultimately, only those who possess virtually identical capital to those in the field of power will join them.

Habitus Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) stated that habitus represents the sum of the ways in which we act, feel, think, and hold ourselves out to the world. Habitus is our socially produced self and how we bring our embodied history into the present. It is the mechanism whereby we make conscious and unconscious choices to act or not to act (Maton, 2008). Habitus has its genesis in early childhood through inculcation, in which the everyday practical taxonomies of the class habitus are imprinted and encoded in the socialization process (Jenkins, 2002). Children observing and listening to those around them, as well as how they are differentially treated in the case of their gender, internalizes “appropriate” ways of behaving and interpreting the world, thus acquiring the cultural capital associated with their class habitus (Webb, Schirato, & Danaher, 2002). Societal-​level effects create gendered contexts for capital creation in children. What might be seemingly inconsequential such as wearing skirts versus pants, being able to display certain emotions more freely, being asked to babysit, wearing make-​up, and not being able to visit friends after nightfall, all act to create certain dispositions which, if widely shared, become associated with that gender. In turn, experiences in these contexts generate gender differentiated capital which can have profound effects upon opportunities for capital accumulation in later stages of life. For example, boys (more than girls) traditionally engage in team sports, particularly contact sports, which are known to contribute to the development of self-​efficacy, leadership, strategic thinking, and an understanding of the importance of social capital (Gould & Carson, 2008). These opportunities advantage boys to the extent that these are valued foundational capitals in the corporate field. Bourdieu maintained that the childhood years were the most important in habitus formation as they dominate the formation of predispositions to the acquisition

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    231 of capital later in life (Jenkins, 2002). Hence, habitus has profound consequences for understanding the lack of diversity in corporate leadership ranks. A major reason is that habitus determines how an individual will perceive themselves, how they present themselves to the world and how they make decisions, including career choice and the kinds of roles they may deem suitable to their gender. For example, it may be that in a woman’s particular class habitus, her parents might have adhered to “traditional” gender roles around whose career is primary, and where this habitus informs her own adult decisions, she may have more misgivings about accepting a remote or overseas posting than a man.

Symbolic Violence According to Bourdieu (2001), symbolic violence is the process whereby power is exercised over others to deny access to opportunities for the accumulation of valuable capitals. Symbolic violence explains how the field can privilege the occupants of one class habitus over another (see Figure 15.1). Bourdieu (1977) observed that most contemporary societies maintain hierarchies and social inequality less through physical force than by forms of symbolic domination. However, the system can only work effectively if those upon whom symbolic violence is practiced are complicit. Such complicity is a result of a broadly shared societal habitus, which inscribes in nearly all of us, the need to respect, value, and obey certain manifestations of public order (universities, courts, stock exchanges, traffic regulations, dress-​codes) as being legitimate (Bourdieu, 2000: 171). Bourdieu and Wacquant, (1992: 168) stated that “Of all forms of ‘hidden persuasion,’ the most implacable is the one exerted, quite simply, by the order of things.” As such, those dominant in a field need only “let the system they dominate take its own course to exert their domination.” Symbolic violence can be both direct and indirect. It can take the form of denying individuals access to training, social gatherings, informal advice, mentoring, special projects, transfers to more upwardly mobile positions or can be represented by the stereotype bias in performance assessments and job applications, each of which can deny valuable capital acquisition (Conger, 2004). As Fitzsimmons and his colleagues (2014) found, many of these forms of symbolic violence are reported by women CEOs, and other senior women aspiring to gain CEO roles or board positions. These denials around access to opportunities for leadership development are part of gendered patterns in the accumulation of career relevant experiences that stretch back to birth into their working lives that create significant limitations upon the ability of women to access leadership roles.

Doxa Bourdieu (1990) noted that social fields reproduce themselves through largely unconscious acts framed by doxa. Doxa represents the taken for granted beliefs or social

232    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan orthodoxy in any given field. Doxa is the connection between the field and the capital which is valued most and is reproduced by those within the field (see Figure 15.1). It is doxa that Bourdieu believed to be the “cornerstone of any field to the extent that it determines the stability of the objective social structures through the way these are reproduced, and reproduce themselves, in the agents’ habitus and these are the unquestioned ‘shared beliefs’ constitutive of a field” (Grenfell, 2014: 116). Doxa underpins the conforming behaviors of those agents dominated in the field such that few question the need for the accumulation of particular (and arguably arbitrary) forms of capital to progress. Doxa are judged by individuals as the objective “rules of the game” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 98). According to Bourdieu (1977, 1990), doxa explains the reproduction and reinforcement of organizational norms, since individuals who most embody these shared beliefs are also most likely to rise through the field of positions and into the field of power, thus further strengthening organizational doxa through their acceptance and promotion of it. Doxa are unquestionable due to the influences of socialization and explain why individuals do not resist practices that have damaging consequences for themselves and their families (e.g., long hours, unreasonable time frames, role overload).

Illusio Bourdieu (1990) argues that agents entering the field do so implicitly aware that they will become part of “the game.” The degree to which they see themselves as fitting into the field is determined by the alignment of their embodied cultural knowledge, skills, and dispositions (foundational capitals gained through their habitus), to those capitals promoted by the field of power. As Aboulafia (1999) notes, every field produces and reproduces a specific form of interest or “illusio” in the game—​a form of recognition of the value of the stakes of the game and an understanding that to succeed one will need to gain a practical mastery of the rules of the game in that field. There are many “stakes” in the corporate field. For example, rising to the role of CEO is rewarded with volumes of economic capital often 300–​400 times that of the average employee (Gabaix & Landier, 2008), as well as providing opportunities to enter the upper echelons of the field of power. Illusio also extends to a belief that the game, or at least part of it, is worth playing in the first place. In other words, the agent makes a choice to forego the opportunities of other fields to enter this one. For example, women often choose a field or occupation with greater work role flexibility in order not to forego greater investments in motherhood later in life (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

Valuable Capital in Executives We argue that to understand why there are so few women in executive leadership roles requires an understanding of what comprises the valuable capitals of the corporate field,

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    233 and what is the doxa driving their acquisition. In the corporate field, existing CEO capital formulations represent the dominant symbolic system used by boards and executive recruiters to determine new admissions to executive and CEO ranks (Bourdieu, 1990). Several studies have been undertaken to determine the most valuable volumes and structures of capitals in CEOs (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016a; Glick, 2011; Hoffman, Schniederjans, & Sebora, 2004). These can be synthesized into seven valuable capitals: leadership, strategy, integrity, self-​efficacy, cognitive capacity, stewardship, and visibility (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016a), with doxa identified in the criteria surrounding executive appointment decisions. Overall, the evidence supports a rather narrow set of highly context dependent capitals, with social capital playing a determinative role in all CEO appointments. CEO capitals are valued by firms only where they are developed in specific industry or organizational contexts (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016a).

Leadership While board chairs and executive recruiters rarely refer to academic models of leadership such as transformational (Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996) and authentic (Avolio & Gardner (2005), when looking at executive and CEO appointments, most contemporary organizations do value leaders who are collaborative, utilize effective communication, have strong self-​awareness, and emotional and social intelligences. Critically, corporate doxa dictates that these capitals are acquired through a strong track record of leading either a profit-​making center, division, or firm (known as a having occupied a line or operational role) successfully through the enactment of a definitive strategy. Leadership in this sense is defined as the ability to frame a vision and to successfully bring others with them (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b).

Strategy In senior appointments, chairs and executive recruiters report that what most differentiates a winning executive candidate is the ability to convey a credible strategic vision and direction for the firm/​division and to excite the board about this vision (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). Again, doxa dictates that the track record of the candidate must evidence the ability to design and lead a successful corporate strategy in an operational (profit center) business unit. This requires having had oversight over the entire value chain of that profit center and a deep understanding of its connections to other areas of the business.

Integrity Integrity as defined by board chairs comprises the ability to be open, honest, authentic, and transparent in dealings with boards, executive team members, managers, staff, and

234    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan other business stakeholders (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). Integrity also comprises an assessment of a candidate’s ability to elicit trust from the board, their executive team, employees and key external stakeholders (Resick et al., 2009). In appointment contexts, integrity is checked through a candidate’s track record of honest and transparent communication with the groups identified above. Critically, determinations around integrity, particularly in the context of CEO or senior executive appointments, also comes down to the boards’ subjective assessment of “what their insides are telling them” and whether they feel they can work well with the individual (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). Reciprocally, it also includes an implicit assessment of the alignment of values of the candidate with that of the senior leadership group. The successful candidate needs to fit in with the personalities of the leadership team, the board and organizational culture of the business (Westphal & Zajac, 1997). Such a set of subjective criteria, where the leadership team are all male, lays wide open the possibility of stereotype content in prejudicing women candidates (Heilman & Caleo, 2018).

Self-​Efficacy In senior executive and particularly CEO roles, there is little day to day oversight by superiors. As such the role has fewer opportunities to test or check decisions with others. Chairs report that self-​efficacy comprises the psychological capitals of robustness, resilience, confidence, and determination, with a need for senior leaders to “know what they do not know, but to be confident in their judgments once they have made them” (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b: 770). Chairs often report “strong leaders” as being more likely to stand by their strategic vision, communicate corporate values and behaviors and lead change by example, particularly in times of adversity (Avolio et al., 2004). Robustness and resilience are also equated by boards as a manifest commitment to long hours and continuity of service (Williams, 2000).

Stewardship Stewardship comprises financial acumen in addition to a deep understanding of the full breadth of organizational processes. Again, doxa dictates that candidates with strong operational or profit center backgrounds are more likely to have a thorough understanding of the complete value chain of a firm, as opposed to those occupying support roles. It is also accepted that operational role experience provides an understanding of the roles played by support functions such as human resources, finance, information technology, legal, and marketing (Galli & Muller-​Stewens, 2012). Further, stewardship requires the executive to understand all aspects of the industry and its drivers for profit, particularly having served continuously in the industry to understand that industry’s economic cycles. Doxa dictates that without an acceptable track record dealing with a wide array of systems and processes, the candidate would not have the knowledge and expertise to convince key internal and external stakeholders of their vision (Gardner et al., 2011).

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    235

Cognitive Skills Effective CEOs and executives are described as quick thinking, unfazed by ambiguity, unbiased, able to balance various points of view, highly analytical, logical, and relational in dealing with complex decisions. They can move between short-​term tactical and long-​term strategic problems without unduly preferencing one over the other (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). Again, doxa dictates that the crucible for testing cognitive skills is in large profit center roles, which are considered to be the most complex and cognitively demanding.

Visibility Visibility is strongly aligned to social capital and the ability of a leader to access networks to further the firm’s interests and to impress stakeholders. Firms value leaders who are well connected, and well-​respected in their industry since they are more likely to bring new skills, contacts, and ideas to the firm as well as impress key stakeholders (Tian, Haleblian, & Rajagopalan, 2011). Visibility, in the appointment context, also plays a key role in facilitating the assessment of the capitals outlined above. In the CEO appointment process, of importance to board chairpersons is the candidate’s visibility related not only to a CEO’s track record of success, but also to their ability to access networks to further the firm’s interests and to impress stakeholders (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). Doxa dictates that if an executive or CEO candidate is not already visible to boards, they are rarely considered for appointment or progression, irrespective of the apparent alignment of the candidate’s curriculum vitae with the needs of the firm. Hence the quantity and quality of a candidate’s business relationships, and particularly how the candidate’s previous experiences are viewed by key business stakeholders is a critical component of the appointment process. In other words, experience is of little value without the social capital to validate it.

Valuable Capital, Doxa and Illusio: Barriers to the Progression of Women The forms of valuable capital, and the means and the drive to acquire them as outlined above, when intersected with gender as a class habitus, clearly highlights many of the key barriers faced by women. Primary among these are doxa surrounding continuity of service within an industry, long working hours and availability, the need for line/​operational role experience, deep networks and self-​efficacy, and their intersection with gender role stereotypes and the division of domestic labor. We now discuss how such factors function as barriers to the progression of women to senior manager, executive, and CEO roles.

236    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan

Childcare, Flexibility and the Division of Domestic Labor The leaky pipeline, which results in relatively few women becoming senior leaders, extends back to class habitus and decisions made by adolescent women in early secondary school. As noted, illusio and class habitus play pivotal roles in directing young women’s choices away from traditionally male dominated interests, subjects, careers, and industry sectors, as well as operational roles within those sectors (Fitzsimmons, Yates, & Callan, 2021). These are often seen as conflicting with future motherhood roles and the predispositions of what women “are good at or supposed to do.” However, illusio is not simply played out in the mind of the agent through their upbringing, but is also informed, reflected, and reinforced in aggregate by societal norms that are responsible for nation-​wide structures that intersect with the corporate field (see Acker, 2006). For example, attitudes toward domestic duties and child care in most Western countries see women spend twice the amount of time on these tasks than men, leaving women with less discretionary time to devote to career capital acquisition (Eagly & Carli, 2007) and often resulting in women undertaking more flexible roles. However, flexible roles are rarely operational roles (Brescoll, Glass, & Sedlovskaya, 2013). Organizations often respond to requests by women for more flexibility by reducing their hours or reducing their responsibilities and women are often sidelined to lower-​status support roles for which they are underpaid relative to their previous seniority. Often these support roles, and their part-​time nature fails to fully leverage a woman’s existing capital, providing fewer development opportunities and disrupting established social networks that are needed to promote capitals through visibility, causing existing capital to erode (Cahusac & Kanji, 2014). Those in flexible positions are also more frequently excluded from critical meetings as well as given fewer opportunities for training, attendance at key conferences, and development, further limiting capital accumulation or exacerbating capital erosion (Cahusac & Kanji, 2014). The rate of capital erosion is not linear but rather it accelerates the longer a person is out of the paid workforce or in flexible and part time roles (Casinowsky, 2013). Additionally, women are far more likely to suffer physical and emotional exhaustion and burnout due to role conflict (Reichl, Leiter, & Spinath, 2014) with childcare conflicts being the primary cause of women opting out of the workforce (Cahusac & Kanji, 2014). Time absent from the workforce needs to be considered relative to the length of time “the game is played.” In the S&P500, for example, the average age of a CEO is 54 years (Peni, 2014) and senior executives in their mid to late 40s. Most people commence their career after exiting university at the average age of 21. Hence “time in the game” is a period of approximately 30 years. Therefore, a break of only three years represents 10% of the time on the journey to executive ranks, time spent by others growing and consolidating their valuable capital relative to those absent. Disruptions to capital acquisition, as outlined above, can often be fatal to reaching senior leadership roles. This is because a central aspect of capital acquisition is that certain quantities and qualities of valuable capital unlock the next opportunity for capital

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    237 accumulation through visibility in appropriate roles (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). Each new job assignment or promotion, dependent upon its adherence to doxa and dominant forms of capital, tests existing structures and volumes of valuable capital in the individual while providing an environment to accumulate new capital. Higher-​level roles and special assignments, particularly in line, operational, or international/​intra-​ national contexts, provide the greatest opportunities to develop, test, and refine senior leadership capitals. Critically, the number of these roles is finite and will be granted to those “qualified” and, above all, present. These roles bring heightened visibility and an increasing network of social contacts in an accelerating upward spiral. Leaving this track makes the task of acquiring the same valuable capital as those who remained in the game virtually impossible. It is not surprising that there is very little evidence that traditional approaches to flexible work practices being the key to increasing women’s representation in leadership roles. There is evidence of significant negative relationships between flexible work hours and women’s advancement into senior management positions (Straub, 2007). An issue related to traditional gender roles was highlighted by Conger (2004) in relation to how global organizations structure their leadership development practices around overseas and intra-​ national job assignments. Such assignments provide individuals with a broader business stewardship perspective, grow their adaptability, and provide a broader range of knowledge, skills, and abilities required in more senior roles. However, it is well documented that women are acutely disadvantaged in selection for these assignments and in maximizing the benefits from such opportunities, due to perceived gender role conflicts in undertaking such roles including, if married, whether their husband would be willing to relocate with them (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

Networking and Social Capital Tied into the division of domestic labor, and the disparity in discretionary time generally available to women, is the issue of opportunities for social capital accumulation. In studies examining the origins of CEO and executive networks and visibility, the most important type of networking was found to be the maintenance of past work associations, closely followed by involvement with professional associations, industry bodies, presenting, chairing, or other conference/​industry association committee work (Fitzsimmons & Callan, 2016b). This provides both visibility and credibility to those involved, as well as increasing the pool of referees for boards or other parties interested in them as a senior leadership candidate. Undertaking these roles dramatically increases candidate visibility and brings their valuable capital to the attention of parties interested in recruiting/​promoting them. Eagly and Carli (2007) report that women have as many professional relationships as men. However, their networks are largely sex segregated, with women preferring to be with women, and men with men. As Bowles (2012: 191) notes, “the social structure of the business world reflects sex segregation of occupations in which women congregate

238    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan in the lower levels of the hierarchy.” Given that men occupy the higher levels of the hierarchy, they are clearly advantaged in the information gained through their social interactions and being more visible to those who make key promotion and appointment decisions (Doldor, Anderson, & Vinnicombe, 2013). It is widely understood that social capital can be more essential to career advancement than skillful performance of traditional managerial tasks (Tharenou, 1999), yet women bear an unequal share of domestic duties, severely disadvantaging them in allocating time to these, often, extra-​workplace, time intensive undertakings, thus limiting opportunities for the acquisition of this valuable capital.

Stewardship through Line Roles and Breadth and Depth of Industry Experience As Evans and Diekman (2009) note, women often choose, and are assigned to, career paths that are considered more congenial to their stereotypical attributes such as administrative, human resources, marketing, and legal support functions. Corporate doxa maintains that such roles do not produce valuable stewardship capital. Likewise, valuable stewardship capital is equated to length of uninterrupted service within an industry. While we have discussed career interruptions above, women also face blockages to their career paths more often than men. Women report the need to move sideways to gain promotion more than twice as often as men, usually with a move outside of their starting industry (Fitzsimmons et al., 2014). While this may heighten the degree of women’s contextual experience across different industries, doxa requires most senior leadership appointees to have a depth of experience across industry cycles, thus disadvantaging women further. Such blockages for women implicitly allow men a greater ability to pick and choose the next, more senior role driven by interest and the need for new challenges, and which also align to corporate doxa surrounding paths of progression. Likewise, it is also well documented that women are often forced to take greater career risks by undertaking positions that male colleagues or applicants, perhaps with more privileged information about the position, have declined (Ryan et al., 2016). Such choices make the purposive acquisition of stewardship capital a far more difficult and risky proposition for women.

Leadership Capital and Authenticity Carli (2001) identified a “double bind” that limits women’s abilities to engage in a full range of influencing behaviors. Put simply, gender role stereotypes cause women’s leadership to be evaluated negatively if they are perceived as too “feminine” in their leadership style, as well as if they are perceived to be too “masculine,” thus impacting upon progression opportunities. Further, as Eagly and Carli (2007) remark, women face

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    239 significant dangers in the assessments of their authenticity and trustworthiness if, to counter the double bind, they try to adopt leadership styles that do not come naturally, further impacting upon the acquisition of leadership capital. One solution is to turn to mentors and role models for guidance, either through direct communication, or more often through observation of the ways in which women should act with regard to leadership. There is strong support for mentoring and sponsorship being more important for the progression of women than for men (Dworkin, Maurer, & Schipani, 2012). Moreover, a solid body of evidence supports the positive effect that mentoring has upon protégée outcomes including promotion decisions, increased pay, and career mobility (O’Brien et al., 2008). Additionally, Ramaswami and his colleagues (2010) note that the benefits of having mentors is further amplified for female managers in male gender congenial industries and contexts, such as senior management. Critically, however, male mentors cannot take the place of women role models in providing credible exemplars of leadership behaviors for women (Latu, et al., 2013). Senior women role models play a critical role in women’s progression in two ways: they evidence the possibility of obtaining senior roles, boosting self-​efficacy capital (Lockwood, 2006) and they provide clues about navigating the nuances of leading as a woman, so enhancing leadership capital (Latu et al., 2013). However, such a solution is not available to all women. In many contexts there may be few or even no women in senior leadership roles to provide role modeling and it is also well documented that men are more reluctant to mentor women than men (Ragins & McFarlin, 1990). This reality limits the development, testing, and refinement of valuable capitals in women, and particularly the critical social capital that mentors and career sponsors can provide (Dworkin, Maurer, & Schipani, 2012).

Gender Differences in Self-​Efficacy Gender differences in self-​efficacy arise in childhood, rapidly diverging after the age of 10 and remaining so until age 80 (Bleidorn et al., 2016). Gendered inputs received by boys and girls through family, friends, schools, television, and society generally, create a gendered class habitus and differentiated levels of self-​efficacy capital (Malpas, 2011). Seemingly inconsequential decisions about who can and should participate in major self-​efficacy generating activities such as team sport and unaccompanied travel (Fitzsimmons et al., 2021) can have lifelong consequences around the future ability or inability to acquire self-​efficacy capital (Bandura, 1997). Self-​efficacy capital is a major driver in facilitating access to opportunities to acquire all other forms of valuable capital (Day & Dragoni, 2015). The mechanism for this is through balanced self-​promotion and volunteering for projects and promotion opportunities, something that men tend to engage in far more often than women (Steinmeyer & Spinath, 2009). Put simply, if one is not driven to actively seek capital development opportunities, these opportunities are far less likely to come your way (Lyness & Thompson, 2000).

240    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan

Gender Bias and Violence Despite the recent focus by organizations upon addressing gender discrimination, there is ample evidence that direct discrimination still exists and is driven by persistent descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotypes (Heilman & Caleo, 2018). Male dominated industries such as construction, engineering, and mining are identified as environments where many forms of direct discrimination, including sexual harassment and assault, are most prevalent (Paap, 2008). Outcomes from direct discrimination include risking negative consequences in raising the issue, such as ostracism, disengagement, lower work satisfaction, decreased effectiveness, and lower health and well-​being. All of these outcomes significantly impact upon social capital, self-​efficacy, and chances for progression (Cunningham, Bergman, & Miner, 2014). Further, there are still widespread assumptions by organizational leaders that women will have greater and more conflicting responsibilities in the home. Given these demands, it is assumed that women will not aspire to leadership roles or undertake roles with greater after-​hours demands, such as operational or line roles, resulting in these opportunities being withheld. Additionally, there remains a tendency for older males in general to act “chivalrously,” often taking the form of “benevolent sexism” or “protective paternalism” (King et al., 2012). In essence, traditional stereotyped beliefs that women need to be protected, lead men to define some organizational contexts and job assignments as “too risky” or “unsafe” for women to undertake due to persistent stereotyping, bias, overt discrimination, and even physical violence (Hoobler, Lemmon, & Wayne, 2014). Gender composition of recruitment and promotion panels also impact the likelihood of bias in these panels, particularly where the role being assessed is in a gender stereotypical male industry and decision panels are comprised entirely of senior males (Hoyt, 2012). Holgersson (2013) noted that where this occurs, males will often impose unconscious (and sometimes conscious) informal criteria aligned to the social characteristics of those on the panel. These characteristics are more likely to be aligned with males being interviewed, decreasing the chances of a woman being appointed or promoted.

Implications for Designing More Successful Organizational Interventions Organizations must begin to think and act uniformly and holistically if they are to address the lack of women in senior leadership roles. There is an urgent need to recognize that while there is much that they can do, many of the root causes of workplace gender inequality lay outside the scope of their operations and reside in the society in which they are resident and which is responsible for generating the formative habitus

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    241 of their employees. Without a dramatic shift in societal thinking around the formation of gender, and the consequent gendered differences in opportunities for capital acquisition, major changes in the number of women reaching senior leadership roles will be difficult, if not impossible. Substantive change can only occur when governments, organizations, and communities, supported by evidence-​based research, begin to address the issue together. Their task is to understand, acknowledge, and to change the complex and interconnected forces that prevent women from acquiring the capitals required to run our largest corporations, as well as to challenge the existing perception of what is considered as valuable capitals by the field of power. Highlighting more specifically the role for academic researchers, Kulik (2022) emphasizes that researchers must be more effective change agents through highlighting the interconnections among gender inequality factors, while supporting managers in the design of small-​scale structural changes, alongside large-​scale organizational interventions. From an organizational perspective, women’s leadership development needs to be planned and undertaken as an integrated and ongoing transformation of the individual through practices and processes surrounding their daily activities. In this context, and similar to gender mainstreaming for women (Lee-​Gosselin, Briere, & Ann, 2013), every aspect of the employee life-​cycle from recruitment to exit and particularly every job assignment, performance conversation or networking opportunity, needs to be considered in relation to how it will produce valuable capital. Leading practice organizations in the area of workplace gender equality go further by creating metrics around these key activities as well as outcome metrics such as length of time in role and rates of progression. Measurement is undertaken regularly to ensure that there is no gender differential access to capital acquisition experiences or biases in progression and, importantly, hold all managers accountable for addressing differences should they be found (Fitzsimmons, Yates, & Callan, 2020). Organizations need to undertake these measures while also accounting for gendered class habitus and the structures within the field that may have acted, or continue to act, negatively upon acquiring valuable capital. Further, because some valuable capitals grant access to others, which in turn lead to opportunities to both refine and communicate accumulated capital through networks at later stages of a career, the need for early intervention in leadership development is profound. Hence, organizations are faced with the dual issues of developing early career interventions that target the capital gaps in women managers caused by a gendered class habitus, while also focusing upon the removal of structural barriers which act to reduce access to the accumulation of new capital that will aid their career advancement. In this regard, mentoring and sponsorship programs can play a critical role (Dworkin, Maurer, & Schipani, 2012). In particular, by identifying entry level or early career, high potential women who may be in support areas of the firm and assigning both male and female mentors to them, while taking active steps toward training and development aligned toward giving them the capital required to move into operational roles (Bowles, 2012), should they wish to do so. However, for such programs to produce any long-​term impacts, organizations need to acknowledge and

242    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan address structural societal issues that have traditionally acted against women undertaking such roles, such as accommodating the current inequitable division of domestic labor, through provision of incentives to ameliorate these burdens. These include shared paid parental leave and the provision of increased flexibility, wherever possible, over how, when and where work can be undertaken (Fitzsimmons, Yates, & Callan, 2022). Organizations also need to assess assumptions about qualification criteria for roles, especially in established professions and fields with low female graduate numbers such as engineering, which are characterized by strongly gender skewed graduate intakes. As many firms have demonstrated in recent years, it is possible to hire women graduates with similar degrees and support their conversion or upskilling to more operationally aligned capitals in the formative years of their career, thereby increasing the number of women entering the talent pipeline (Fitzsimmons, Yates, & Callan, 2020). As we emerge from the COVID-​19 pandemic, one “silver lining” has been the mainstreaming of remote and flexible working and the electronic infrastructure to support teamwork. Resistance to remote and flexible working has largely been relegated to the past, with the realization of the increased productivity benefits of remote working, when thoughtfully coupled with only purposive attendance in the office, rather than arbitrarily dictated presenteeism. Likewise, output measures of performance have become more of the norm in managing this remote workforce and managers have had little choice than to upskill in managing flexible workforces, all of which will advantage women who have traditionally needed to manage greater domestic responsibility. Organizations that wish to progress more women into senior leadership roles would do well to embrace and continue to refine the lessons gained through remote working during the pandemic and continue to encourage men to continue remote working (Fitzsimmons, Yates, & Callan, 2022). While boys and girls continue to receive differential experiences in childhood relating to the development of self-​efficacy and leadership, and while gender stereotypes persist around everything from caring responsibilities to leadership styles and leader authenticity, there is an ongoing need to ensure that all women, at all stages of their careers, are provided with access to knowledge regarding the drivers of gender inequality and an understanding of organizational/​industry doxa necessary for career progression (Ramaswami et al., 2010). Organizational and industry doxa tend to be unspoken, or at least unpublished, privileging those who have sponsors and mentors that can make these often “invisible” concepts visible for their mentees. In this sense “knowledge is power” and equipping women with this, often privileged, understanding provides them with the tools to combat symbolic violence or, at the very least, to see it for what it is. This is a role that “women only,” leadership development workshops and courses can play. Ely and her colleagues (2011) identified that such occasions provide women the freedom to discuss bias, practical mechanisms for navigating male dominated environments and provide visibility around doxa. While perhaps beyond the scope of an organizational intervention, planning around the sharing of domestic responsibilities needs to be a topic that is raised by women early in relationships with prospective life partners. Organizations can play a significant

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    243 role in facilitating these kinds of discussions around the impact of gender, through sponsoring and integrating employee groups around topics such as parenting, childcare, managing work/​life balance, maintaining meaningful contact with employees on parental leave and ensuring ongoing networking opportunities. However leading practice organizations take this a step further by leveraging these groups in the development, validation, and implementation of policies related to the furtherance of workplace gender equality (Fitzsimmons, Yates, & Callan, 2020).

Conclusion Until such time as men undertake an equal proportion of domestic responsibilities, and childcare and gender stereotypes which drive a gendered class habitus and generate gendered structures in our society are eliminated, organizations will need to intervene to drive an equality of progression opportunities for women. Organizational interventions need a dual focus. Firstly, they must find ways of equalizing the time women have to invest in establishing and maintaining meaningful networks and investing in valuable capital acquisition. Secondly, they must address the impact of gender role stereotypes across the life cycle of the employee, as well as embedded within organizational structures and doxa. There is a strong gendered class habitus that has created an uneven playing field, impacting not only upon entry to the organization at the beginning of a career, but also continuing to disproportionally impact women across their career.

References Aboulafia, M. (1999). A (neo) American in Paris: Bourdieu, Mead, and pragmatism. In R. Shusterman (Ed.), Bourdieu: A critical reader. (pp. 153–​174). Oxford: Blackwell. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20(4): 441–​464. Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). (2022). Company directory. https://​www2.asx.com.au/​ mark​ets/​trade-​our-​cash-​mar​ket/​direct​ory Accessed February 15, 2022. Avolio, B.J. & Gardner, W.L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3): 315–​338. Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 801–​823. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-​efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman and Company. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater, L. (1996). The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 5–​34. Bleidorn, W., Arslan, R. C., Denissen, J. J., Rentfrow, P. J., Gebauer, J. E., & Potter, J. (2016). Age and gender differences in self-​esteem—​A cross-​cultural window. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(3), 396–​410.

244    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bowles, H. R. (2012). Claiming authority: How women explain their ascent to top business leadership positions. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 189–​212. Brescoll, V. L., Glass, J., & Sedlovskaya, A. (2013). Ask and ye shall receive? The dynamics of employer-​provided flexible work options and the need for public policy. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 367–​388. Burke, C. (2016). Bourdieu’s theory of practice: Maintaining the role of capital. In J. Thatcher, N. Ingram, C. Burke, & J. Abrahams (Eds.), Bourdieu: The next generation, 8–​24. New York: Routledge. Cahusac, E., & Kanji, S. (2014). Giving up: How gendered organizational cultures push women out. Gender, Work and Organization, 21(1), 57–​70. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–​741. Casinowsky, G. B. (2013) Working life on the move, domestic life at standstill? Work related travel and responsibility for home and family. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(3), 311–​326. Cassells, R., & Duncan, A. (2020). Gender equity insights 2020: Delivering the business outcomes. BCEC|WGEA Gender Equity Series, Issue #5, March 2020. Catalyst. (2022). Women CEOs of the S&P500 (list). https://​www.catal​yst.org/​resea​rch/​women-​ ceos-​of-​the-​sp-​500/​ Accessed 15th February, 2022. Conger, A. (2004). Developing leadership capability: What’s inside the black box? Academy of Management Executive, 18(3): 136–​139. Cunningham, G. B., Bergman, M. E., & Miner, K. N. (2014). Interpersonal mistreatment of women in the workplace. Sex Roles, 71, 1–​6. Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W. Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leaders and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1): 63–​82. Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-​oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2: 133–​156. Day, D. V., & Harrison, M. M. (2007). A multilevel, identity based approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review, 17(4): 260–​373. DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 35(4): 627–​647. Doldor, E., Anderson, D., & Vinnicombe, S. (2013). Refining the concept of political will: A gender perspective. British Journal of Management, 24, 414–​427. Dworkin, T. M, Maurer, V., & Schipani, C. A. (2012). Career mentoring for women: New horizons/​expanded methods. Business Horizons, 55: 363–​372. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders. New York: Harvard Business School Press. Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women's leadership development programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–​493.

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    245 Evans, C. D., & Diekman, A.B. (2009). On motivated role selection: Gender beliefs, distant goals and career interest. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33(3), 235–​249. Fitzsimmons. T. W., & Callan, V. J. (2016a). Applying a capital perspective to explain continued gender disparity in the C-​Suite. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3): 354–​370. Fitzsimmons, T. W., & Callan, V. J. (2016b). CEO selection: A capital perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(5): 765–​787. Fitzsimmons, T. W., & Callan, V. J. (2020). The diversity gap in leadership: What are we missing in current theorizing? The Leadership Quarterly, 31–​101347. Fitzsimmons, T. W., Callan, V. J., & Paulsen, N. (2014). Gender disparity in the C-​suite: Do male and female CEOs differ in how they reached the top?. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(2), 245–​266. Fitzsimmons, T. W., Yates, M. S., & Callan, V. J. (2020). Employer of choice for gender equality: Leading practices in strategy, policy and implementation. Brisbane: AIBE Centre for Gender Equality in the Workplace. Fitzsimmons, T. W., Yates, M. S., & Callan, V. J. (2021). Lean in? The role of single sex schools in the gendering of confidence in high school adolescents. Australian Journal of Career Development, 30(2): 139–​149. Fitzsimmons, T. W., Yates, M. S., & Callan, V. J. (2022). Experiences of COVID-​19: The pandemic and work/​life outcomes for Australian men and women. Brisbane: University of Queensland Business School. Gabaix, X., & Landier, A. (2008). Why has CEO pay increased so much? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(1): 49–​100. Galli, E. B., & Muller-​Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 176–​201. Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6): 1120–​1145. Glick, M. B. (2011). The role of the chief executive officer. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(2), 171–​207. Grenfell, M. J. (Ed.). (2014). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts. London: Routledge. Gould, D., & Carson, S. (2008). Life skills development through sport: Current status and future directions. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, (1)1, 58–​78. Grenfell, M. (2008). Methodological principles. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 219–​228). Stocksfield UK: Acumen Publishing. Heilman, M. E., & Caleo, S. (2018). Gender discrimination in the workplace. In A. J. Colella & E. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination (pp. 73–​88). Oxford : Oxford University Press. Hilgers, M., & Mangez, E. (2015). Bourdieu’s theory of social fields: Concepts and applications. New York: Routledge. Hoffman, J. J., Schniederjans, M. J., & Sebora, T. C. (2004). A multi-​objective approach to CEO selection. INFOR, 42(4), 237–​255. Holgersson, C. (2013). Recruiting managing directors: Doing homosociality. Gender, Work and Organization, 20(4), 454–​466. Hoobler, J. M., Lemmon, G., & Wayne, S. J. (2014). Women’s managerial aspirations: An organizational development perspective. Journal of Management, 40(3), 703–​730. Hoyt, C. L. (2012). Gender bias in employment contexts: A closer examination of the role incongruity principle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 86–​96.

246    T.W. Fitzsimmons, V.J. Callan, M.S. Yates, and R. Jordan Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 56–​87. Jenkins, R. (2002). Pierre Bourdieu. London: Routledge. King, E. B., Botsford, W., Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S., Dawson, J. F. & Perkins, A. (2012). Benevolent sexism at work: Gender differences in the distribution of challenging developmental experiences. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1835–​1866. Kulik, C. T. (2022). Gender (in)equality in Australia: Good intentions and unintended consequences. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 60, 97–​115 Lane, J. F. (2000). Pierre Bourdieu: A critical introduction. London: Pluto Press. Latu, I. M., Mast, M. S., Lammers, J., & Bombari, D. (2013). Successful female leaders empower behavior in leadership tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 444–​448. Lee-​Gosselin, H., Briere, S., & Ann, H. (2013). Resistances to gender mainstreaming in organizations: Toward a new approach. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 28(8): 468–​485. Lockwood, P. (2006). “Someone like me can be successful”: Do college students need same-​ gender role models? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 36–​46. Lyness, K.S. & Thompson, D.E. (2000). Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 86–​101. Maclean, M., Harvey, C., & Kling, G. (2017). Elite business networks and the field of power: A matter of class? Theory Culture and Society, 34(5–​6): 127–​151. Malpas, J. 2011. Between pink and blue: A multidimensional family approach to gender non-​ conforming children and their families. Family Process, 50(4), 453–​470. Maton, K. (2008). Habitus. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts, 49–​66. Stocksfield UK: Acumen Publishing. McCall, M. W. (2010). Recasting leadership development. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 3(1): 3–​19. McRobbie, A. (2004). Notes on “What not to wear” and post-​feminist symbolic violence. In L. Adkins & B. Skeggs (Eds.), Feminism after Bourdieu, 99–​109. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Nichols, T. W., & Erakovic, R. (2013). Authentic leadership and implicit theory: A normative form of leadership? Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, 34(2), 182–​195. O’Brien, K. E., Biga, A., Kessler, S. R., & Allen, T. A. (2008). A meta-​analytic investigation of gender differences in mentoring. Journal of Management, 36(3), 537–​554. Paap, K. (2008). How good men of the union justify inequality: Dilemmas of race and labour in the building trade. Labour Studies Journal, 33(4), 371–​392. Peni, E. (2014). CEO and chairperson characteristics and firm performance. Journal of Management & Governance, 18: 185–​205. Pinnington, A. H., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Lawyers’ professional careers: Increasing women’s inclusion in the partnership of law firms. Gender, Work & Organization, 20(6), 616–​631. Ragins, B. R., & McFarlin, D. B. (1990). Perceptions of mentoring roles in cross gender mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37(3), 321–​339. Ramaswami, A., Dreher, G. F., Bretz, R., & Wiethoff, C. (2010). Gender, mentoring and career success: The importance of organizational context. Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 385–​405. Reed-​Danahay, D. (2005). Locating Bourdieu. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Reichl, C., Leiter, M., & Spinath, F. (2014). Work-​nonwork conflict and burnout: A meta-​ analysis. Human Relations, 67(8): 979–​1005. Resick, C. J., Whitman, D. S., Weingarden, S. M., & Hiller, N. J. (2009). The bright-​side and the dark-​ side of CEO personality: Examining core self-​ evaluations, narcissism,

Gendered Organizational Progression of Individuals    247 transformational leadership and strategic influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1365–​1381. Rivera, L. A., & Tilcsik, A. (2016). Class advantage, commitment penalty: The gendered effect of social class signals in an elite labour market. American Sociological Review, 81(6): 1097–​1131. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, A. S., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J., & Peters, K. (2016). Getting on top of the glass cliff: Reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3): 446–​455. Statista. (2022). Number of female held CEO positions in FTSE companies in the United Kingdom (UK) as of June 2019. https://​www.stati​sta.com/​sta​tist​ics/​685​208/​num​ber-​of-​fem​ale-​ceo-​ positi​ons-​in-​ftse-​compan​ies-​uk/​ Accessed February 15, 2022. Steinmeyer, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). What explains boys’ stronger confidence in their intelligence? Sex Roles, 61(9–​10), 736–​749. Straub, C. (2007). A comparative analysis of the use of work-​life balance practices in Europe. Women in Management Review, 22(4), 289–​304. Swartz, D. (1997). Culture and power: The sociology of Pierre Bourdieu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tharenou, P. (1999). Gender differences in advancing to the top. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 1–​22. Thompson, P. (2008). Field. In M. Grenfell (Ed.), Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (pp. 67–​81). Stocksfield UK: Acumen Publishing. Tian, J., Haleblian, J., & Rajagopalan, N. (2011). The effects of board human and social capital on investor reactions to new CEO selection. Strategic Management Journal, 32(7), 731–​747. Webb, J., Schirato, T., & Danaher, G. (2002). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage. Westphal, J. D., & Zajac, E. J. (1997). Defections from the inner circle: Social exchange, reciprocity and the diffusion of board independence in U.S. corporations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 161–​183. Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press. Zajac, E. J., & Westphal, J. D. (1996). Director reputation, CEO-​board power, and the dynamics of board interlocks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(3): 507–​529.

chapter 16

Leadersh i p Fac e s Overlooking Good Leaders Dawn L. Eubanks

While this rings true, research indicates that some individuals have a predisposition to be selected for leadership positions because of their appearance (e.g., Antonakis & Eubanks, 2017; Todorov et al., 2005). The result could be that we do not hire, promote, or elect potentially great leaders. To compensate for our tendencies to rely on superficial cues, it is important to put procedures in place to make appointment processes as objective as possible. This can help ensure that the most qualified, best leaders are put into power, whatever the domain. Selecting the best person can become difficult when we may not know much about the individual, and temptation leads us to make decisions based on superficial cues. Since leadership is traditionally associated with being a male-​ dominated domain—​think manager think man—​some potential pitfalls of this are clear. Add to this that much of what we know about effective leadership has historically been drawn from a Western context. Since there are facial variations between people of different genders and races, when we try to apply our conceptions of what a leader looks like, we will surely make mistakes. Add to this, characteristics we desire from leaders within categories such as business or politics, vary as well (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002). We have made a great deal of progress in leadership research in terms of understanding characteristics that relate to effective leadership. While much leadership research has focused on Western white males, we are beginning to fill in the gaps, increasing our knowledge of non-​western leadership styles and how women lead. In particular, related to women, we know that leadership is not a straightforward path. Leadership is inherently viewed as an agentic activity associated with males. Being agentic includes characteristics associated with goal attainment such as being assertive, competent, and persistent. Communal characteristics are ascribed to women that are associated with maintaining relationships. Some of these characteristics include being friendly, helpful, and fair. Since we traditionally associate agentic qualities with leaders and men, women must figure out how to be seen as a leader without being too agentic and leaving behind the communal characteristics typically associated with their gender

Leadership Faces   249 (Koenig et al., 2011). In sum, for women to be successful in leadership roles, they need to make careful maneuvers to overcome not only the unconscious biases driven by long standing societal norms, but also institutionalized practices that can create barriers for women to advance. We will now turn from more personality-​based characteristics of leaders to physical ones. Looking at physical features as indicators of leadership is not new. Research describing indicators of leadership success based on gender (Koenig et al., 2011) and height (Stogdill, 1948) have been written for some time, but there is now a considerable body of research on facial features and successful male leaders (e.g., Todorov et al., 2005; Toderov et al., 2015). While there is a good deal of research on personality characteristics of successful female leaders (Vinkenburg et al., 2011), much less is known about physical characteristics of successful female leaders, in particular the influence of their facial features. The explanation routinely given for this is that there are too few female leaders occupying top positions to accurately draw conclusions in a statistically significant way. This conclusion is unfortunate and depressingly true. Research demonstrates that we are significantly swayed by facial cues (Lawson et al., 2010) in determining our perceptions of leaders. Regardless of the accuracy of these judgments, the impact remains that individuals with certain facial cues such as competence and attractiveness find themselves in leadership positions and then continue to be promoted, creating a self-​fulfilling prophecy of perceived success. This research area of leadership is predominantly focused on white males, giving us little information about facial features of other races and genders. In this chapter, we will consider what has been written about this topic and explore how these judgments differ by profession and discuss existing research and gaps. This will be examined within the context of existing research and role congruity theory setting forth a research agenda.

Unintended Consequences on Equality While we may feel we are making progress in terms of gender equality, as of June 2021, only 8% of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies were women (Buchholz, 2021). Add to this, that number is a record high. In sum, we have a long road to gender equality in senior leadership. While the reasons underlying this disparity are incredibly complex, we do know that characteristics we believe a leader should have influence our perceptions about leaders we encounter. These implicit leadership theories based on preconceived notions and assumptions, have widespread implications (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004). Our unconscious biases play a crucial role in how we perceive our world around us and decisions that we make. The implications of this are twofold. First, if we are unaware of our biases, we are unaware of the information we are drawing upon to make our decisions. This results in decisions being made that are in fact distorted and bent to our biases. Uncovering these biases at least allows us to lift the cover of distortion and shed some light on the mechanisms

250   D.L. Eubanks underlying our decisions. Unconscious biases related to social norms held about other races and genders are manifested in how we think about characteristics of effective leaders as well as what we think they should look like. Although many of us would be disturbed to think that we were so simplistic in how we determine whether someone would be a good leader, there is indeed a large body of evidence suggesting that we are in fact quite simple creatures, relying on facial appearance more than many of us would like to admit. For example, would you find it disturbing to learn that you may identify someone as a leader simply because they have a high facial-​width-​to height ratio? In a study on UK Chief Executive Officers (CEOs), Alrajih and Ward (2014) discovered that these individuals have a higher facial width-​to height ratio (FWH) than age and sex controls. Participants rated these CEOs higher in dominance or success which are correlated with FWH. This finding opens up a startling realization about what drives our perceptions. Becoming aware of our unconscious biases allows us to interrogate our assumptions. Second, if we are unaware of our biases, the results of decisions we make can set in motion a self-​fulfilling prophecy. In essence, an advantage to those who have the right look to fulfil a particular role, in this instance, leadership. These individuals who have the right look find themselves in leadership positions where they can gain experience, get further promoted, and become great leaders. These unconscious biases can result in potentially good leaders not having the opportunity to try on the leadership hat. Without having these leaders in place, we will never know what leaders we might have had. One result may be homogeneity and lack of diverse perspective amongst leaders which is not necessarily a good thing. Research clearly indicates that facial appearance plays a role in the selection of leaders (Todorov et al., 2005), however our self-​awareness related to this is poor. We also know that the less information we have about an individual, the more we rely upon whatever information we do have, which oftentimes includes appearance (Antonakis & Jacquart, 2013). This tendency can be difficult to overcome. In a study about the role of Afrocentric features, researchers found that even when participants were explicitly told to not allow these features to inform their judgments, they were unable to (Blair, Judd, & Fallman, 2004). This is congruent with findings by Sczesny and Kühnen (2004) where they found that individuals do recognize awareness about a possible biasing influence of persons’ biological sex, but not for their physical appearance. This suggests that our self-​ awareness is truly limited. Research has demonstrated quite clearly that participants in an experimental setting can predict the winner of an election based only on facial appearance considering facial characteristics indicating competence, intelligence, leadership, or attractiveness (Ahler et al., 2016; Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009; Lawson et al., 2010; Sussman, Petkova, & Todorov, 2013; Todorov et al., 2005). We also know that looking powerful and competent is important for leadership success in business (Linke, Saribay, & Kleisner, 2016; Rule & Ambady, 2009, 2011; Stoker, Garretsen, & Spreeuwers, 2016). Toderov et al. (2015) demonstrated this effect works similarly when rating males and females in a political context, although ratings of attractiveness have a larger influence on females (Berggren, Jordahl, & Poutvarra, 2010). In addition to these more subjective measures, there are

Leadership Faces   251 objective measures of leadership related to firm financial performance including facial width to height ratio, mentioned above (Wong, Ormiston, & Haselhuhn, 2011) and mouth width (Re & Rule, 2015). Studies assessing the impact of these objective measures were conducted with all male faces, so we do not know how these findings correspond to female faces.

Research on Groups Other than White Males To add to the complexity about facial features and leadership effectiveness, the same facial features held by separate groups can result in different perceptions. For example, having a baby face is advantageous for black men in that it positively predicts the success of black male CEOs but negatively predicts the success of Caucasian male CEOs (Livingston & Pierce, 2009). Speculation about this finding indicates that perhaps baby-​faced Black CEOs experience more success than mature faced Black CEOs because their warm appearance is disarming and may mitigate racial stereotypes. Livingston and Pierce also found that white female CEOs were rated as warmer than white male CEOs. Similarly, perhaps female CEOs who have faces that appear supportive, compassionate, and warm may mitigate stereotypes about agentic women in power being cold or hostile (Heilman & Okimoto, 2007). This somewhat confirms the idea that to make it to these top positions, women need to highlight their communal characteristics. Although untested, this phenomenon may be even more pronounced in Black women as it mitigates the “angry Black woman” stereotype (Motro et al., 2022). There is substantial evidence that women exhibiting agentic behaviors can experience backlash because it violates their stereotypical feminine characteristics (e.g., Heilman et al., 2004; Rudman & Glick, 1999; Rudman & Phelan, 2008). This can hinder their chances for promotion to leadership positions. Taking all this into account, it makes sense that women who look more feminine might offset any stereotype violations in their behavior. However, this is far from conclusive. Take the study by Rule and Ambady (2009) where their conclusions indicated that company profits were predicted by an individual holding stereotypically masculine characteristics as perceived through facial appearance regardless of CEO gender. There is clearly still a lot to uncover here as we tease apart the drivers of leadership success.

The Complicated Road for Women in Leadership How women achieve success in leadership roles is not straightforward. Female leaders are often described in terms that do not fit them into a feminine stereotype. However, women

252   D.L. Eubanks can be punished if they try to ignore their femininity. Research by Eagly and Karau (2002) have studied leadership through the lens of social role theory. From this research, we know that for women to be successful leaders they cannot enact the same characteristics as their male counterparts. Rather they need to be aware of the agentic stereotypes associated with leadership which are typically considered masculine, and fulfil their expectations of their female role, being empathetic etc. (Vinkenburg et al., 2011). In a study looking at dominance and attractiveness, participants were asked to look at images of individuals unfamiliar to them (Mileva, Kramer, & Burton, 2019). They rated 40 images on several dimensions such as attractiveness, dominance, and trustworthiness. Clear sex differences emerged in the perception of dominance, with negative evaluations of high dominance in unfamiliar females, but not in males. This again can be explained through social role theory. Dominance is a characteristic most often associated with males, so when females present this characteristic, perhaps it is met with suspicion, particularly when the female is unfamiliar. This is confirmed in a study by Sutherland et al. (2015), who asked participants to rate more or less dominant looking male and female faces on trustworthiness. Results indicated that females with dominant faces were rated as less trustworthy than less dominant looking females. There was no difference in trustworthy ratings for more or less dominant-​looking males. In a study by Pillemer, Graham, and Burke (2014) participants made judgments about personality via facial appearance. Communal traits were positively related to company performance for female CEOs and agentic traits were positively related to company performance for male CEOs. In support of social role theory, male CEOs were rated higher on agentic traits (dominance, leadership, powerfulness) and female CEOs were rated higher on communal traits (supportive, compassion, warmth). There were also correlations with profits and/​or company rank and powerfulness in male CEOs and correlations with profits and/​or company rank and supportiveness, compassion, and warmth for female CEOs. What does this mean then, if ratings of female CEOs are not correlated with stereotypical leadership traits? Perhaps this means that leadership positions held by females take a different, but equally effective form that needs to be recognized rather than shoehorning women into a style of leadership established by male leaders in the past. For some time, female leaders have realized that they need to contort themselves to be seen as effective. In sum, there has been a perception that female leaders cannot be themselves. Take for example, as Queen Elizabeth I rallies the troops at Tilbury in 1588 as the threat of the Spanish Armada grows, she is keenly aware of the perceptions of women being weak and attempts to compensate for those perceptions by highlighting the unseen elements within her “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king....” Elizabeth I may have been acutely aware of the barriers she needed to mitigate, particularly being a female leader in the sixteenth century in a time of war. Further, we know that leadership context matters. For example, people demonstrate a preference for faces showing female cues during peacetime (Spisak, 2012). Also, people show a preference for the maturity of a face based on leadership strategy. If the strategy is stable exploitation, a more mature face is preferred, whereas a strategy of exploratory change prefers a more immature face (Spisak et al.,

Leadership Faces   253 2014). Another study looking at strategy found that individuals with more feminine features were considered more effective for cooperative strategies, while leaders with more masculine features were considered more effective for competitive strategies (Brown & Perrett, 1993). Sczesny and Kühnen (2004) found that masculine relative to feminine looking persons seem to be judged consistently as more competent leaders. Again, take for example, the quote from Queen Elizabeth I “Golden Speech” in 1601 as she was leaving office. “It is not my desire to live or reign longer than my life and reign shall be for your good. And though you have had, and may have, many mightier and wiser princes sitting in this seat, yet you never had, nor shall have, any that will love you better.” In this, the Queen draws upon her value as she sees it in terms of what a female leader can bring to the table, emotion, and compassion. In terms of leadership behaviors, transformational leadership theory provides an interesting avenue for women to gain credibility as leaders. As an integral part of the Full Range Leadership Model (Avolio & Bass, 1991) along with transactional leadership (i.e., viewing leadership as a series of give and take transactions), parts of these two leadership approaches display communal characteristics with an emphasis on relationships. Modern conceptualizations of transformational leadership theory written about by Bass (1985) describe how leaders can transform and motivate followers through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individualized consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Idealized influence is about acting as a role model, leading by example, and prioritizing follower needs. Inspirational motivation is about inspiring follower achievement through a shared vision. Individualized consideration is related to relationship development with followers by giving time and care. Intellectual stimulation is about encouraging followers to think for themselves and is associated with creativity and innovation. Vinkenburg et al. (2011) found that study participants believed that women exhibited more idealized influence behavior, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, and the contingent reward subscale of transactional leadership. The contingent reward subscale is related to communication about the employee’s role, task requirements, performance criteria, and the rewards that will be received if the goals are met (Bass, 1985). Transformational leadership in addition to the contingent reward dimension of transactional leadership has been shown to be indicators of effective leadership (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). These relatively recent changes in how we view effective leadership may also alter what physical characteristics we associate with effective leaders. In fact, a meta-​analysis of 69 studies demonstrated that a more androgynous view of leaders is emerging with the inclusion of female characteristics such as teambuilding and empowering (Koenig et al., 2011). However, people generally prefer a male versus a female leader in politics, organizations, and businesses (Eagly & Carli, 2007).

Findings Outside of Business Settings There has long been speculation about the relationship between facial features and personality, however more recently, researchers have identified correlations between self-​ratings

254   D.L. Eubanks of personality and personality ratings completed by others after viewing a standardized photograph (Penton-​Voak et al., 2006). Results from this study demonstrated a significant positive correlation between male self-​ratings and ratings based on photographs for extraversion, emotional stability, and openness to experience. There was a significant positive correlation between female self-​ratings and ratings based on photographs for extraversion only. Although the reason for this is unclear, we may have more concrete conclusions we draw from male faces compared to females. Alternatively, perhaps women systematically self-​rate in a way that does not reflect their outward appearance. A similar study relying on ratings of artificially generated faces found that in general there was higher rater agreement in how to evaluate male faces compared to female faces (Wolffhechel et al., 2014). Additionally, this study found that female faces were perceived to be more trustworthy, responsible, and attractive, whereas males were confirmed to be more emotionally stable. These perceptions can influence our expectations of a person fulfilling a role that is not stereotypically associated with their gender. We have known for some time that there is a shortage of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines with women making up only 28% of the science and engineering workforce in the U.S. (National Girls Collaborative, 2022). The consequence is that when we think of a scientist, a male image is more likely to come to mind than a female. This was confirmed in a study where participants relied on gendered appearance as a cue to how likely someone was to be a scientist (compared to being an early childhood educator or a journalist) for women, but not for men (Banchefsky et al., 2016). Preconceived notions about what someone in a particular field is supposed to look like run rampant. For example, Isis Wenger, an engineer, raised this issue when people said she did not look like an engineer because she was too young and attractive. In response, the hashtag iLookLikeAnEngineer was created where engineers could post self-​portraits to challenge the notions of what an engineer is supposed to look like (Zamon, 2015). An experiment comparing CEO faces to US citizens and professors, found that CEO faces can be distinguished from general US citizens or professors (Stoker et al, 2016). However, they found that CEO faces in top performing firms do not differ from other CEOs. This shows us that there is a CEO look, but it does not translate to performance. Research conducted by Olivola, Eubanks, and Lovelace (2014) further highlights domain based facial differences. In this study, participants were able to accurately identify the domain that a leader belonged to when given the options of sports, military, or business. The researchers found that participants relied on different facial cues based on the domain they were asked about. Specifically, sports and military leaders were rated as less attractive and less warm than political and business leaders. Participants were not as accurate in correctly identifying the domain of political leaders. Because politicians are selected into power by a wider range of people compared with selection processes in other domains, there may be further complexity here. And judgments may differ by political affiliation. For example, female politicians with more masculine facial appearances were found less likely to receive votes, especially if they are Republican candidates in the United States (Hehman et al., 2014).

Leadership Faces   255

Who’s Making the Judgment? The gender of the person making the judgment makes a difference to the conclusion drawn about an individual. For example, in a study of Finnish elections, there were several differences found based on the gender of the person making the judgment (Berggren, Jordahl, & Poutvaara, 2010). For example, men perceived male candidates to be more competent and intelligent than female candidates. Men perceived female candidates to be more beautiful, trustworthy, and likeable. Women gave female candidates more positive assessments across all characteristics. These differences in what males versus females identify in candidates is quite troubling. However, there is a strong positive relationship between beauty and perceived competence and beauty and perceived intelligence for male and female candidates for both male and female study participants. These results demonstrate the strong influence of beauty when evaluating political candidates. We find differences based on the gender of the rater in business settings too. In a study by Pillemer, Graham, and Burke (2014) there was a significant interaction between rater gender and CEO gender. Further, both male and female participants gave higher ratings to male CEOs, but the difference was bigger for male raters compared with female raters. Similarly, in a study by Sczesny and Kühnen (2004), they found that when rating for leadership competence, female participants evaluated masculine and feminine looking women very similarly. Also, in line with the Finnish election study, the mean rating of attractiveness was significantly higher for female CEOs than male CEOs (Pillemer, Graham, & Burke, 2014). Fascinatingly, male CEO attractiveness correlated with every other trait in the study (supportive, compassion, warmth, competence, leadership, powerful, dominance) except for femininity and facial maturity. Female CEO attractiveness was only correlated with femininity. This indicates that there are many ways for men to be considered attractive, but only one way for women, through femininity.

Non-​White Leaders Leadership for non-​white women presents an even more complicated story. Research by Rosette, Koval, Ma, Livingston (2016) studied Asian, Black, and White women and perceptions of them as leaders. They found there are distinct stereotypes as well as consequences for women leaders from each of these subgroups. In sum, Black women are perceived as being dominant but not competent. Asian American women are perceived as being competent but passive. White women are perceived as primarily communal without being seen as particularly dominant or excessively competent. In terms of consequences suffered because of these stereotypes, Asian American women suffer the worst in terms of experiencing agentic penalties. White women suffer agentic

256   D.L. Eubanks penalties to a lesser extent as well as competence penalties and Black women are relatively untouched by agentic penalties but suffer competence penalties. Digging into racial differences a little more, we discuss two studies here that demonstrate how we rely on our cultural norms when making judgments about people from other cultures. First, the study by Rule et al. (2010) compared elections in the United States and Japan with U.S. and Japanese participants. Raters indicated that the U.S. political candidates looked powerful. Raters indicated that Japanese politicians looked warm. For the American politicians, only American raters accurately predicted the actual percentage of votes that the candidates received. And for Japanese politicians, only Japanese raters accurately predicted the actual percentage of votes that the candidates received. These results indicate that people making assessments need substantial knowledge about the culture of the person they are judging to make an accurate assessment. Without this knowledge, assessments were not accurate because raters projected their own cultural norms onto their judgments. Next, an experiment investigating cultural differences and leader effectiveness tested the accuracy of Western raters judging photographs of Chinese leaders (Harms, Han, & Chen, 2012). The results indicated that raters valued typically Western agentic leadership characteristics such as dominance, positivity, and intelligence with perceived leader effectiveness. However, none of these characteristics or the overall rating of leader effectiveness was related to actual success factors within the organization. In fact, these Western raters were quite poor at determining who would be successful when viewing these photographs from a different culture. These findings have profound effects if we want to achieve ethnic diversity in leadership.

Implications Based on What We Do Know It is a mixed picture in terms of facial appearance and non-​white and female leaders. Some characteristics are consistent regardless of sub-​category, while others present quite a different picture. Some of these differences are in alignment with what we find for other characteristics of leadership from social role theory. Others speak to our deeply held unconscious biases. Regardless of the reason for these differences, it is important to recognize them. The reason being, we may miss out and not hire, promote, or elect a potentially good leader because they simply do not match our pre-​existing stereotype of what a leader in a particular domain might look like. Having increased awareness of this issue can help to mitigate such a mistake, but as we see from the study by Blair et al. (2004) awareness of stereotypes does not change behavior. Rather, we need to put systems in place to try to have more objective hiring and promotion practices. These phenomena operating in the political realm are much harder to regulate and it is unethical to try to control public voting behavior.

Leadership Faces   257

Future Research Agenda For some time, artificial intelligence (AI) has assisted with repetitive tasks. AI technologies have been incorporated into human resource functions such as targeting potential applicants and screening job candidates to progress (Hmoud & Laszlo, 2019). As highlighted throughout this chapter, human biases abound and while we may have positive intentions, we are products of our environment. These biases may mean that we miss the best candidate for the job, including when we select leaders. Further research into chatbots performing functions such as posing initial screening and interview questions could help to reduce bias in the initial stages of candidate selection. AI can also assist in targeting and inviting relevant applicants to ensure that a broad, diverse pool of individuals apply for jobs. More advanced AI solutions assess candidates in video interviews for choice of words, tone of voice, and speaking patterns as a tool to assess emotional intelligence, honesty, and personality (Hmoud & Laszlo, 2019). While the aim is to increase diversity, this sort of assessment may create additional bias for example against non-​native speakers. However, humans may hold similar biases. This is an area where more research is required to assess how AI can assist not only in reducing workload, but also reducing human bias. In the scant research that has been done on faces and women, we recognize that the same sorts of biases that exist in our perceptions of women enacting agentic leadership characteristics applies to their faces. This is in line with what we would expect based on social role theory. The influence of female attractiveness presents an interesting knot to untangle, and more research is required here. Next, while we have some information about Afro or Asian features and leadership perceptions, there is not much that has been investigated in this area. This is particularly true for non-​white females. Finally, while there are some interesting discoveries found based on the gender or ethnic category of the participant rater, there is much more to uncover here. This provides quite a lot of space for future research to occur, digging deeper into stereotypes, unconscious bias, and the implications in terms of selecting the best leader for a position. As John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” However, there is the sad reality that you may not be able to realize the positional power required to fully achieve this if you do not have the right sort of appearance that will allow you into a leadership position. This highlights the critical nature of this issue. There are some individuals whose leadership potential may never be realized if we do not put systems in place to guard against unconscious bias and stereotypes.

References Ahler, D. J., Citrin, J., Dougal, M. C., & Lenz, G. S. (2016). Face value? Experimental evidence that candidate appearance influences electoral choice. Political Behavior, 39, 77-​102.

258   D.L. Eubanks Alrajih S, Ward J. Increased facial width-​to-​height ratio and perceived dominance in the faces of the UK’s leading business leaders. Br J Psychol. 2014 May; 105(2): 153–​1561. doi: 10.1111/​ bjop.12035. Epub 2013 Jun 5. PMID: 24754804. Antonakis, J., & Dalgas, O. (2009). Predicting elections: Child’s play! Science, 323(5918), 1183. Antonakis, J. & Eubanks, D. L. (2017). Looking leadership in the face. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 270–​275. Antonakis, J., & Jacquart, P. (2013). The far side of leadership: Rather difficult to face. In M. C. Bligh & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), When near is far and far is near: Distance in leader-​follower relationships (pp. 155–​187). New York: Routledge. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). The full range leadership development programs: Basic and advanced manuals. Bass, Avolio Associates, New York. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press. Banchefsky, S., Westfall, J., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2016). But you don’t look like a scientist!: Women scientists with feminine appearance are deemed less likely to be scientists. Sex Roles, 75, 95–​109. Berggren, N., Jordahl, H., & Poutvaara, P. (2010). The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1–​2), 8–​15. Blair, I. V., Judd, C. M., & Fallman, J. L. (2004). The automaticity of race and Afrocentric facial features in social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 763. Brown, E., & Perrett, D. I. (1993). What gives a face its gender? Perception, 22(7), 829–​840. Buchholz, K. (2021). Only 8 percent of CEOs at fortune 500 companies are female. Statista https://​www.stati​sta.com/​chart/​13995/​fem​ale-​ceos-​in-​fort​une-​500-​compan​ies/​ 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., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–​598. Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293–​ 310. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​0021-​9010.89.2.293 Harms, P. D., Han, Guohong, & Chen, Huaiyu (2012). Recognizing leadership at a distance: A study of leader effectiveness across cultures. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 19, 164–​172; doi: 10.1177/​1548051812436812 Hehman, E., Carpinella, C. M., Johnson, K. L., Leitner, J. B., & Freeman,J. B. (2014). Early processing of gendered facial cues predicts the electoral success of female politicians. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(7), 815–​824. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2007). Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 81–​92. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-​typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416−429. Hmoud, B., & Laszlo, V. (2019). Will artificial intelligence take over human resources recruitment and selection. Network Intelligence Studies, 7(13), 21–​30. Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-​ analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-​analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616–​642.

Leadership Faces   259 Lawson, C., Lenz, G. S., Baker, A., & Myers, M. (2010). Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies. World Politics, 62, 561–​593. Linke, L., Saribay, S. A., & Kleisner, K. (2016). Perceived trustworthiness is associated with position in a corporate hierarchy. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 22–​27. Livingston, R. W., & Pearce, N. A. (2009). The teddy-​bear effect: Does having a baby face benefit black chief executive officers? Psychological Science, 20, 1229–​1236. Mileva, M., Kramer, R. S. S., & Burton, A. M. (2019). Social evaluation of faces across gender and familiarity. Perception, 48(6): 471–​486. doi: 10.1177/​0301006619848996. Epub 2019 May 13. PMID: 31084254. Motro, D., Evans, J. B., Ellis, A. P. J., & Benson, L. III. (2022). Race and reactions to women’s expressions of anger at work: Examining the effects of the “angry Black woman” stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(1), 142 152. https://​doi.org/​10.1037/​apl​0000​884 National Girls Collaborative (2022). https://​ngc​proj​ect.org/​sta​tist​ics Retrieved February 7, 2022. Olivola, C. Y., Eubanks, D. L., & Lovelace, J. B. (2014). The many (distinctive) faces of leadership: Inferring leadership domain from facial appearance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 817–​834. Penton-​Voak, I. S., Pound, N., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Personality judgments from natural and composite facial images: More evidence for a “kernel of truth” in social perception. Social Cognition, 24(5), 607–​640. Pillemer, J., Graham, E. R., & Burke, D. M. (2014). The face says it all: CEOs, gender, and predicting corporate performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 855–​864. Re, D. E., & Rule, N. O. (2015) The big man has a big mouth: Mouth width correlates with perceived leadership ability and actual leadership performance. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 63, 86–​93. Rosette, A. S., Koval, C. Z., Ma, A., & Livingston, R. (2016). Race matters for women leaders: Intersectional effects on agentic deficiencies and penalties. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 429–​445. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004−1010. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61−79. Rule, N., & Ambady, N. (2009). She’s got the look: Inferences from female chief executive officers’ faces predict their success. Sex Roles, 61, 644–​652. Rule N. O., Ambady, N., Adams, R. B., Ozono, H., Nakashima, S., Yoshikawa, S., & Watabe, M. (2010). Polling the face: prediction and consensus across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1):1–​15. doi: 10.1037/​a0017673. PMID: 20053027. Sczesny, S., & Kühnen, U. (2004). Meta-​cognition about biological sex and gender-​stereotypic physical appearance. Consequences for the assessment of leadership competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 13–​21. Spisak, B. R. (2012). The general age of leadership: Older-​looking presidential candidates win elections during war. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e36945. https://​doi.org/​10.1371/​jour​nal.pone.0036​945 Spisak, B. R., Grabo, A. E., Arvey, R. D., & van Vugt, M. (2014). The age of exploration and exploitation: Younger-​looking leaders endorsed for change and older-​looking leaders endorsed for stability. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 805–​816.

260   D.L. Eubanks Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: A survey of the literature. Journal of Psychology, 25, 35–​7 1. Stoker, J. I., Garretsen, H., & Spreeuwers, L. J. (2016) The facial appearance of CEOs: Faces signal selection but not performance. PLoS ONE 11(7): e0159950. doi:10.1371/​ journal. pone.0159950 Sussman, A. B., Petkova, K., & Todorov, A. (2013). Competence ratings in US predict presidential election outcomes in Bulgaria. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 771–​775. Sutherland, C. A. M., Young, A. W., Mootz, C. A., & Oldmeadow, J. A. (2015). Face gender and stereotypicality influence facial trait evaluation: Counter‐stereotypical female faces are negatively evaluated. British Journal of Psychology,106, 186–​208. http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1016/​ j.cognit​ion.2012.12.001 Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308(5728), 1623–​1626. Todorov, A., Olivola, C. Y., Dotsch, R., & Mende-​Siedlecki, P. (2015). Social attributions from faces: Determinants, consequences, accuracy, and functional significance. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 519–​545. Vinkenburg, C. J., Van Engen, M. L., Eagly, A. H., & Johannesen-​Schmidt, M. C. (2011). An exploration of stereotypical beliefs about leadership styles: Is transformational leadership a route to women’s promotion?. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 10–​21. Wolffhechel, K., Fagertun, J., Jacobsen, U. P., Majewski, W., Hemmingsen, A. S., Larsen, C. L., Lorentzen S. K., & Jarmer, H. (2014). Interpretation of appearance: The effect of facial features on first impressions and personality. PloS one, 9(9), e107721. Wong E. M., Ormiston, M. E., & Haselhuhn, M. P. (2011). ‘A face only an investor could love’: CEOs’ facial structure predicts their firms’ financial performance. Psychological Science, 22: 1478–​1483. doi:10.1177/​0956797611418838PMID:22042727 Zamon, R. (2015, August 4).#ILookLikeAnEngineer reminds us that anyone can (and should) be an engineer. Retrieved from http://​www.huf​fi ng​tonp​ost.ca/​2015/​08/​04/​ilookl​ikea​neng​ inee​r_​n_​7934​098.html

chapter 17

What D o Celebri t y C E O s L o ok Li k e ? Udari Ekanayake and Mariano Heyden

Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) such as Tim Cook, Satya Nadella, Richard Branson, and Indra Nooyi are widely considered global sensations, where mentions of their names immediately elicit attention. Indeed, these CEOs garner a disproportionately high amount of public attention creating “positive emotional responses from stakeholder audience” (Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward, 2006: 51). Research on CEO celebrity has emerged to capture our fascination with these leaders and is an intriguing dimension of social status among the corporate elite (Cho et al., 2016; Malmendier & Tate, 2009). Celebrity status is conferred to CEOs through positive social reinforcement by prominent business media outlets (Lee et al., 2020). Firms led by celebrity CEOs in turn, are expected to enjoy reputational benefits and higher financial performance (Treadway et al., 2009). Unsurprisingly, celebrity CEOs also benefit from their status (Hayward et al., 2004), as they are often heralded as more capable strategic leaders and tend to command higher remuneration (Graffin, Boivie, & Carpenter, 2013). Although some of the acclaim seems warranted (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Wade et al., 2006), media outlets do not award celebrity status to all noteworthy CEOs. Otherwise well-​performing CEOs such as Zoran Bogdanovic (Coca-​Cola), Ben Van Beurden (Royal Dutch Shell), Miles White (Abbott Laboratories), tend to be less recognizable names to broader audiences. This is intriguing, as despite our increasing fascination with CEOs (Quigley & Hambrick, 2015), it appears that the conferral of celebrity status to CEOs is not homogenously distributed by the media. Thus, although we know a lot about the consequences of CEO celebrity (Cho et al., 2016; Graffin, Boivie, & Carpenter, 2013; Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004), less is known about why some CEOs gain celebrity status while others do not. In this study, we extend literature on CEO celebrity by drawing on evolutionary psychology to introduce the role of observable physical attributes of corporate leaders. We ask, are there certain observable physical attributes that garner greater positive attributions from the media? We combine insights form attribution theory and evolutionary

262    U. Ekanayake and M. Heyden psychology, to spark a conversation around the physical profiles of corporate leaders that seem to garner disproportionate attention from the media. Empirically, we unpack three dimensions of observable physical characteristics of CEOs that have been linked to attributions of leader competence by the media more broadly: CEO facial dominance (facial Width-​to-​Height-​Ratio [fWHR]; Gomulya & Boeker, 2014), CEO gender (Dixon‐Fowler, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 2013), and CEO race (Andrevski et al., 2014). We examine celebrity status awarded to CEOs from their prominence in media publication drawing on a sample of 209 (109 S&P 100 and 99 FTSE 100) firms from 2017 to 2019. In bridging attribution theory and evolutionary psychology, we offer a novel perspective on conferral of celebrity status to CEOs by the media. We make several contributions with our approach. First, the study contributes a new angle to the CEO celebrity literature, by focusing on potential antecedents, as compared to studies focusing on outcomes (Cho et al., 2016; Graffin et al., 2008; Wade et al., 2006). Studies have highlighted that CEOs often have certain distinctive observable features associated with expectations of their competence (Kang, Zhu, & Zhang, 2021). This raises the plausibility that the media may, all else being equal, favor some profiles of CEOs in their conferral of celebrity status, potentially reinforcing physical stereotypes successful CEOs. As a starting point to this new area of inquiry, we investigate the extent to which CEOs’ facial dominance, gender, and race play in receiving their celebrity status. Our findings contribute to the CEO celebrity literature in providing a novel reasoning as to why some CEOs may be favored over others by external observers. Second, we contribute to the understanding of leader stereotype literature. The evolutionary psychology literature has suggested that at zero acquaintance (from a distance), humans make prompt and unconscious judgments of others’ observable physiological cues, such as facial features (Albright, Kenny, & Malloy, 1988). That is, observable physical attributes are used as a source of information by observers in creating social expectations and attributions about distant others (Alrajih & Ward, 2014; Van Vugt & Grabo, 2015). However, over time, some attributes may become expected observable features of what individuals in certain roles should look like. Yet, little progress has been made so far in understanding how outsiders account for different observable physiological cues and how they may perpetuate expectations of what good CEOs “look like.” As such, our study adds to the debate on the role of media in perpetuating versus challenging stereotypes of high-​profile CEOs. Finally, the study contributes empirically by analyzing a unique data set. We analyze the 100 highest market capitalization firms across two different exchange indexes Standard & Poor (S&P) based in US and Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) based in UK. The 100 highest capitalization firms in the two prominent exchange indices are particularly of interest as these firms are closely monitored by different interested parties (Love & Kraatz, 2009) and the CEOs in this pool largely lead well-​performing companies. Accordingly, our empirical approach allows us to gain insights into sources of variation in celebrity status of CEOs at the helm of highly visible companies.

What do Celebrity CEOs Look Like?    263

Conceptual Background CEO Celebrity The connotation celebrity may conjure images of glamour and paparazzi. Yet, in the context of the executive suite, celebrity CEOs have been shown to have a lasting and tangible impact on the firms they lead. Firm’s reputation often is inextricably intertwined with the celebrity status of their past or current CEO such as Apple (Tim Cook), Disney (Robert Iger), and General Electrics (Mary Barra). Not surprisingly, the celebrity status attained by individual business leaders have garnered attention on the academic literature (Treadway et al., 2009). This research has examined celebrity status as applied to populations of CEOs (Graffin et al., 2008; Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Ranft, Ferris, & Perryman, 2007). Celebrity status is awarded to CEOs by prominent business media outlets where the celebrity status is often certified or reinforced by media and the public attention these CEOs receive (Lee et al., 2020). Prior research on celebrity CEOs have focused on the value of having a celebrity CEO in a firm and show that CEO celebrity functions as an intangible asset (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Treadway et al., 2009). CEO celebrity provides several benefits, such as signaling good prospects for the firm, improving investor confidence, attracting resources such as quality employees, and boosting stock market performance (Fanelli & Grasselli, 2006; Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Rindova, Pollock, & Hayward, 2006; Wade et al., 2006). Moreover, public certification of a CEO through prominent media publications can provide the CEO personal benefits such as higher compensation and future job prospects (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004). Celebrity CEOs are less likely to take excessive risks to avoid damaging their identity and losing the benefits that celebrity status can provide (Cho et al., 2016). Maintaining celebrity status requires CEOs to make decisions that do not harm organizational performance while still reaffirming their exalted social status as a skilled strategic actor. Moreover, celebrity status encourages CEOs to align their interest with stakeholders’ interests because being certified as a celebrity CEO can bring personal benefits (Graffin et al., 2008; Wade et al., 2006). A celebrity CEO can also help a firm convince stakeholders of future success thereby allowing the firm to obtain and retain important resources such as high-​quality employees, supplier relationships, and needed financial capital (Fombrun, 1996). Consequently, celebrity CEOs have a keen interest in avoiding risks that can threaten their celebrity status and benefits that celebrity confers (Cho et al., 2016). In recent years, CEO celebrity has received considerable attention as a source of CEO power and prestige. Celebrity CEOs gain power through four stages: (1) social recognition of the CEO, (2) evolution of social recognition into public support, (3) conversation of public support into internal confidence, and (4) internalization of internal confidence

264    U. Ekanayake and M. Heyden into power (Park, Kim, & Sung, 2014). Since the public’s support and trust for the CEO enhance the firm’s relationship with the public, the status can also be used as important social capital for the firm (Ketchen Jr., Adams, & Shook, 2008). Finally, the confidence of the board and shareholder can be internalized into power (Wade et al., 2006). Thus, it should be recognized that CEO celebrity status is a crucial source of CEO differentiation, spilling over to the companies they lead.

Social Evaluations of CEOs Outsiders often include subjective information in their judgments of organizations. These social evaluations (SEs)—​collective judgments of outsiders (George et al., 2016; Roulet & Clemente, 2018), play a significant role in setting the agenda for public discourse. Organizations and their leaders actively respond and adapt to these judgments (Lovelace et al., 2018) as they influence firm’s symbolic resources such as reputation and legitimacy (George et al., 2016; Guthey & Jackson, 2005). External evaluators—​such as media, analysist, regulators, and consumer organizations disseminate social judgments (Zavyalova et al., 2012). Studies linking CEOs to their SEs have particularly emphasized the role of the media publications. There is pervasive evidence that media attribute firm outcomes to their CEOs as the media act as principal agents setting agenda for public discourse with their wider public reach (Gomulya & Boeker, 2014; Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; König et al., 2018). In doing so, the media also plays an external governance role (Aguilera et al., 2015; Heyden, Kavadis, & Neuman, 2017). Media make attributions that firm’s outcomes arise from the strategic choices of CEOs, where such attributions are consistent with the more general attribution phenomenon (Hayward et al., 2004) and it refers to the tendency of observers who attribute actions and outcomes to dispositional characteristics of social actors rather than to situational factors (Jones & Nisbett, 1987; Meindl, Ehrlich, & Dukerich, 1985). In the process of attributing a firm’s actions and performance to its CEOs, media create “celebrity CEOs” (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004). Having created such celebrities, the SE formed by media can change stakeholders’ expectations about (a) who the CEO is and how they will act (Kelley, 1967) and (b) how to respond to CEO actions (McArthur, 1972). Therefore, recognizing the extent to which different attributes attract draw media attention to award these CEOs celebrity status, is an important dimension in our broader understanding of social evaluations of organizations.

Theory and Hypotheses Attribution Theory “Attribution” refers to the cognitive processes through which an individual infers the cause of another’s behavior (Calder & Burnkrant, 1977). Attribution theorists investigate

What do Celebrity CEOs Look Like?    265 the perception of causality or the judgment of why a particular incident occurred, and the allocation of responsibility manifestly guide subsequent behavior (Weiner, 1972). Attribution theory proceeds from Heider’s (1958) insight that social perceivers attribute actions to dispositional or situational rather than luck, because they seek to use stable explanations to understand and control outcomes (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Jones & Davis, 1965). While there are many strands of attribution theory, we adopt Kelley’s (1967) influential model of the criteria that determine whether outcomes are attributed to dispositional or situational factors. Social observers tend to develop expectations about the types of firm actions that will surface in particular situations (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004). There are two principal contexts in which expectation regarding a set of feasible strategic action may lead the media to consider the actions of a firm distinctive and to attribute these actions and firm performance to their CEO. First, actions may be discrepant with those exhibited by their peer firms that operate in the similar industry environments (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967). Second, a firm’s actions under the leadership of a new CEO may deviate from the past actions (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004). The foregoing suggests that strategic distinctiveness may prompt outside observers to discount alternative causal explanations of firm outcomes; while over-​attributing success to the CEO (Messick & Reeder, 1974). However, despite these firm-​level explanations, are there more individual observable attributes at play? We examine some possibilities next.

CEO Facial Dominance and Celebrity Status CEO dominance is an important factor in organizational decision making since the CEO is typically the most influential member of the corporate elite (Jensen & Zajac, 2004). American Psychological Association (2018), defines dominance as the need to control others, motivated by their desire for power, knowledge, prestige, or creative achievement. Dominant CEOs have been linked to a number of crucial corporate outcomes. Examining 51 publicly traded, single-​business US firms Tang, Crossan, & Rowe (2011), showed that dominant CEOs tend to have strategy deviant from industry and central tendency resulting in extreme performance-​either big wins or big losses. Dominant CEOs are particularly important in the case diversifying acquisitions where profitability of a diversified acquisition almost doubling with dominant CEOs (Brown & Sarma, 2007). There is also evidence to suggest that dominant CEOs performance decline in a turbulent environment than in a stable one (Haleblian & Finkelstein, 1993). Evidence from Jiraporn, Chintrakarn, & Liu (2012) reveal that firms led by dominant CEOs adopt significantly lower leverage, probably to evade the disciplinary mechanisms associated with debt financing. Finally, results from Kannan, Pissaris, & Gleason (2012), suggest that high levels of pay disparity between CEO and their top management team (TMT)—​a proxy for CEO dominance are associated with higher audit fee assessments by auditors. Emerging literature on evolutionary psychology studies (predicted from facial width-​ to-​height-​ratio [fWHR]) show that dominance (i.e. higher fWHR) correlate with low

266    U. Ekanayake and M. Heyden trust (Walker & Vetter, 2016), high performance (Alrajih & Ward, 2014), aggressiveness (Carré, McCormick, & Mondloch, 2009), and maximization of self-​ interest (Haselhuhn, Wong, & Ormiston, 2013). Research also coverages to show that dominant facial characteristics are a key predictor of CEO selection and more subjective features such as attractiveness (Alrajih & Ward, 2014; Graham, Harvey, & Puri, 2016). Studies have also shown an association between these facial characteristics and firm’s financial performance such as profitability and ranking (Pillemerm Graham, & Burke, 2014; Re & Rule, 2016). Their aggressive nature and need for success suggest that dominant CEOs have a strong and different view from what is suggested where they are more likely to make strategic decision deviations from the norm (Tang, Crossan, & Rowe, 2011). The face “one of an individual’s most sacred possessions” (Deutsch, 1961, p897) communicates powerful information about individuals (Canace et al., 2020; Hugenberg & Wilson, 2013; Parkinson, 2005). Research suggest that external assessments on facial perceptions of attractiveness, competence, liability (Todorov et al., 2005), and babyfacedness (Zebrowitz & Montepare, 2008) are surprisingly accurate. Companies with high visibility experience greater social and environmental pressures because external evaluators such as media take a greater interest in organizations (Chiu & Sharfman, 2011) while making judgments from a distance based on facial features of these CEOs. Canace et al. (2020) show that CEO attractiveness and likability is favored my media for firms with high media visibility. Livingston and Pearce (2009) also suggest that baby-​faced individuals evoke feeling of warmth, trust, and cooperation while minimizing the feeling of threat. This particular facial characteristic affects the perceptions of CEOs’ honesty and innocence and thereby affects the judgments of trustworthiness, credibility, and vigilance (Gorn, Jiang, & Johar, 2008). Thus, the above-​ mentioned arguments suggest that baby-​faced (less dominant) CEOs are perceived to be more trusting, credible, and competent as well as favored by media, therefore, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 1: CEO facial dominance is negatively associated with CEO celebrity status.

CEO gender and celebrity status Scholars of organizational demography have documented the impact of men and women leaders on organizations. Although women have been making steady progress in moving up to corporate leadership positions, progress to the CEO level remains limited (Helfat, Harris, & Wolfson, 2006; Zhang & Qu, 2016). As Lee and James (2007: 228) have noted “the status differences accorded to men and women, coupled with infrequency with which women are named to executive positions, make gender a salient characteristic that deserves empirical attention.” Integration of leadership ranks by gender is associated with a reduced gender wage gap and reduced gender segregation (Cohen & Huffman, 2007; Cotter et al., 1997; Stainback & Kwon, 2012), suggesting that

What do Celebrity CEOs Look Like?    267 individual leaders can impact a wide range of organizational outcomes (Cook & Glass, 2015b). Research suggest that promoting non-​traditional (such as women) leaders to positions of authority and higher organizational roles can significantly impact firm composition. There are three main explanations for these impacts; (1) Ely (1995) finds that the more integrated a job, the less likely senior decision makers rely on stereotypes and bias, (2) providing support, guidance, and mentorship to leaders make them capable of supporting mobility of others, and (3) promoting women to senior leadership positions may signal a firm’s commitment to diversity, thereby attracting broader range of applicants for the top job (Skaggs, Stainback, & Duncan, 2012). However, research on gender bias and stereotyping have reported that external evaluators such as investors respond less favorably to the appointment of new female leadership (Dixon‐Fowler, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 2013; Dobbin & Jung, 2011; Smith, Chown, & Gaughan, 2021). In one such paper, Lee and James (2007) reported that firms that appoint female CEOs trade at a 2% average discount on the day the appointment is announced. External evaluators and decision makers tend to perceive women as less competent and capable of leading organizations compared to men (Carton & Rosette, 2011; Cook & Glass, 2014a). Female leaders are considered to possess greater emotional sensitivity and interpersonal skills (Ryan et al., 2011) where men in leadership positions are generally considered to be more capable leaders (Cook & Glass, 2014b; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Schein, 2001) and men are qualified to lead organizations through periods of crisis (Cook & Glass, 2014a). Male leaders are evaluated and perceived to be more effective, competent, and qualified than their female counterparts (Eagly & Karau, 2002) and when they perform successfully perceptions of their leadership capabilities are confirmed and reinforced where these leaders experience longer average tenure in their senior leadership positions (Cook & Glass, 2014a). Longer tenure combined with favorable perceived evaluations can create celebrity status for these leaders. Theorists also suggest that the media socially constructs a version of reality where the CEO is being credited to firm’s strategic actions and outcome (Hayward, Rindova, & Pollock, 2004; Ketchen Jr., Adams, & Shook, 2008) where the media play an important role in determining perceptions of firms and their top executives (Dixon‐Fowler, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 2013). Thus, the arguments presented suggest that male CEOs enjoy greater celebrity status, therefore, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 2: Male CEOs are positively associated with celebrity status.

CEO Race and Celebrity Status Over the past two decades, the corporate elite has undergone a significant demographic shift resulting in increased diversity among corporate decision makers (Cook & Glass, 2015a). Effective corporate strategy development requires corporation among firm’s governance body (Papadakis & Bourantas, 1998), and not surprisingly, CEO attitudes toward

268    U. Ekanayake and M. Heyden strategy and practice are key predictors of policy adoption (Thong & Yap, 1995; Waldman & Siegel, 2008; Waldman, Siegel, & Javidan, 2006), which can be influenced by these leaders’ racial background. This is a result of race serving as a proxy for different beliefs, networks, affiliations, and perspective (Cox, Lobel, & McLeod, 1991; McLeod, Lobel, & Cox, 1996). Underrepresented groups in an occupational setting is referred to as occupational minorities (Cook & Glass, 2014a; Haggard & Haggard, 2017; Taylor, 2010). Research suggest that corporate leaders of a minority race are more likely than their Caucasian peers to have a degree from prestigious academic institutions and are more likely to have advanced graduate and professional degrees (Zweigenhaft & Domhoff, 2006). This suggest that educational credentials of minority race CEOs are more likely to expose them to cutting edge practices of governance (Cook & Glass, 2015a) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) (Lee et al., 2020). A large amount of empirical literature provides supporting evidence that improved social performance practices such as CSR contribute to enhanced financial performance (Choi & Wang, 2009; Orlitzky, Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003) as well as making these CEOs more visible and legitimate creating an effective path for celebrity status. CEOs of minority race, tend to have different career trajectories compared to their Caucasian peers (Andrevski et al., 2014; Richard, Murthi, & Ismail, 2007). While race-​ specific job trajectories may lead to fewer opportunities for advancement, differences in functional background of minority leaders can also mean when they are promoted to top positions, these leaders bring a different knowledge due to their exposure to different areas of practice (Cook & Glass, 2015a; Jeong, Mooney Murphy, & Zhang, 2022). Indeed, minority race leaders are more likely than their Caucasian peers to express strong support for responsible governance (Bell & Nkomo, 2001). Minority race CEOs’ greater exposure to non-​productive areas could further strengthen their commitment to CSR, fairness, and accountability, all characteristics of strong governance (Cook & Glass, 2015a). Organizations engaging in such practices enhance their legitimacy (Deegan, 2002) and meet expectations of various stakeholders beyond shareholders (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Minority race celebrity CEOs would want to live up to others’ expectations and invest in maintaining their professional image. Thus, we suggest that minority race CEOs’ heighten interest in social governance practices will influence their desire to improve and protect their celebrity status and the study hypothesize: Hypothesis 3: Minority CEOs (non-​Caucasian) are positively associated with CEO celebrity status.

Data and Methods Sample and Data Collection The starting population included all firms from Standard and Poor (S&P) 100 and Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE) 100 for the years 2017 to 2019. Corporate and

What do Celebrity CEOs Look Like?    269 financial data for S&P 100 firms and FTSE 100 firms were collected from COMPUSTAT industrial databases and company annual reports as well as CEO data from BOARDEX. The sample excludes companies that were delisted and involved in mergers and acquisitions, resulting in 209 firms (109 S&P100 and 99 FTSE100 firms). Interim and Co-​CEOs were also excluded resulting in 255 individual CEOs (131 S&P 100 and 124 FTSE 100 CEOs) and 591 firm-​year-​observations for our analysis.

Variables and Measures Independent Variables: CEO Facial Dominance, Gender, and Race CEO facial dominance: Literature on fWHR indicates that it is a reliable indicator of leader prototype characteristics such as dominance (Carré & McCormick, 2008; Carré, McCormick, & Mondloch, 2009; Valentine et al., 2014). Consistent with previous research (Carré & McCormick, 2008), CEO photographs were collected and three research assistants (RAs) independently measured the fWHR of each CEO photo using the ImageJ (National Institute of Health Open-​Source) software to capture the ratio between the CEO’s bizygomatic width and face height. CEO gender was coded as a binary variable that is a 0 if the CEO is a male and 1 for female CEOs (Crossland et al., 2014). CEO race was coded as a binary variable where 1 =​non-​Caucasian and 0 otherwise (McDonald, Keeves, & Westphal, 2018).

Dependent Variable: CEO Celebrity Status Prominence in media publication was used as a proxy for CEO celebrity. The number of press articles citing the CEO has an impact on the CEO’s reputation (Milbourn, 2003; Rajgopal, Shevlin, & Zamora, 2006; Francis et al., 2008). Newspaper and business publications provide facts and information about the organizations a`nd their leaders reinforcing the image of strong CEOs (Chen & Meindl, 1991). Dow Jones Factiva database, was used to count the number of times the CEO name is mentioned together with their company’s name in news and business outlets such as New York Times, Wall Street Journal, BBC, Guardian, Forbes, Fortune, and Bloomberg.

Control Variables The study controlled for CEO-​, board-​, firm-​, and industry-​level potential confounding factors. Research shows that CEO age has been associated with rigidity and resistance to change (Heyden, Reimer, & Van Doorn, 2017; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992) and influence on company-​wide decision making (Gray & Cannella Jr, 1997; Wowak, Hambrick, & Henderson, 2011). CEO duality afford CEOs more power (Finkelstein, 1992) and was coded as a binary variable where 0 if the CEO is also the chair of the board and 1 otherwise. CEO total compensation included long-​term incentives, pay, stock options, restricted & unrestricted stock grants, and deferred compensation (Rijsenbilt & Commandeur, 2013). Finally, CEO nationality was coded as a binary variable where 1 for S&P 100 American CEOs and 0 otherwise. Similarly, FTSE 100 British CEOs were coded as 1 and 0 for otherwise.

270    U. Ekanayake and M. Heyden At board-​level, board independence was controlled for by calculating the percentage of independent directors on the board. Board size (number of board members) was controlled as directors’ perceived ability to contribute to decision making (Carpenter & Sanders, 2002). Gender diversity, female board representation as the number, proportion or presence of females on boards of directors (Nielsen & Huse, 2010; Post & Byron, 2015) was controlled at board-​level. At firm-​ level, the study controls for Return on Assets (ROA), Research & Development intensity (R&D), and industry membership based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). ROA was calculated by net income divided by total assets (Petrenko et al., 2019). R&D intensity (R&D expense divided by net sales) was controlled as R&D intensity varies significantly by industry (Sanders & Carpenter, 1998). NAICS 3-​digits used to control and account for different operating business environments.

Analysis and Results Table 17.1 show the descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables. The final sample included 255 CEOs made up of 131 S&P 100 firm CEOs and 124 FTSE 100 firm CEOs and 591 firm-​year observations. Off this sample 97% of the CEOs were male, while 7% of the CEOs were female. Finally, the sample comprises of 94% of Caucasian CEOs, while the remaining 6% of the CEOs account for minority racial groups such as Asian/​ Oriental, Black/​African, and Latino/​Hispanic.

Multivariate Model Specification and Hypotheses Testing We adopted a Poisson regression to account for the skewed distribution of our dependent variable (i.e., CEO celebrity status). Against this specification, we examine the association; (1) CEO facial dominance and their celebrity status, (2) CEO gender and celebrity status, and (3) CEO minority (non-​Caucasian) racial background and their celebrity status. The results of our multivariate model are presented in Table 17.2. In our hypothesis 1, we expected that CEO facial dominance would be negatively associated with CEO celebrity status. As expected, we found empirical evidence to support our hypothesis (b =​-​2.32; p < 0.01). In our hypothesis 2, we expected male CEOs to enjoy greater celebrity status, however, our empirical evidence suggest female CEOs enjoy greater celebrity status (b =​-​0.285; p < 0.01), thus rejecting our initial prediction. Female CEOs receive a great deal of publicity, and the nature of media reports on female CEOs contribute to the perceptions of these executives (Dixon‐Fowler, Ellstrand, & Johnson, 2013). Research also suggest that publicly available CEO announcements receive more attention when the CEO in question is not a male (Haggard & Haggard, 2017). This

0.066

6 CEO Duality

1

1.000

0.098* -​0.028

1.000

2

0.020

-​0.043

0.305** -​0.058

6.416 -​0.046

34.450 -​0.208** -​0.016

0.009

0.010 -​0.001

0.156

SD

0.722

0.080

0.273

12.103

0.765

9 ROA

10 Firm Innovation Strategy

11 Board Gender Diversity

12 Board Size

13 Board Independence

-​0.021

**p