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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0964-9425.htm

The social
The social stereotypes of the stereotypes
Portuguese female and
male manager
99
Emı́lia Fernandes and Carlos Cabral-Cardoso
School of Economics and Management, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal Received May 2004
Revised September 2005
Accepted October 2005
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the social stereotypes of the male and the female
manager and their implications for the persistent inequalities between men and women in the
management context.
Design/methodology/approach – The study was conducted using a sample of undergraduate
management students who were asked to fill in a questionnaire containing a comprehensive list of
descriptors of male and female managers.
Findings – The social stereotypes of the female and the male manager appear to be relatively close and
reflecting the dimensions of instrumentality and rationality associated with the work and the management
contexts. The similarity is explained by the adoption of the masculine subcategory as the referent to the
female manager. In contrast with what was obtained for the female manager, respondents tend to associate
the male manager exclusively with the public context. Female students, in particular, seem to assume the
social constraints inherent to women as a social category, while perceiving the female manager as an
outstanding individual who goes beyond what is expected for her gender group.
Research limitations/implications – Future research needs to overcome thinking about gender as
a dichotomy and start voicing the diversity of women and men managers as individuals.
Practical implications – The recognition and acceptance of women in management will not be
achieved simply by the demographic feminisation of management. It requires questioning the
symbolic meanings embedded in the management discourse and social practices that keep the
masculine as the referent.
Originality/value – The findings point towards an asymmetric relationship between the meanings
associated with the female and the male manager subcategories that lead to additional difficulties in
the acceptance of women as managers and help to understand the inequalities that persist between
men and women in management.
Keywords Gender, Women, Managers, Portugal, Sexual discrimination
Paper type Research paper

The masculinization of the social stereotype of the female manager

An increased participation of women in higher education and the labour market are often
presented as evidence of considerable changes in the women’s role in western societies.
Less consensual, however, is the assumption that such changes have challenged the
dominant ideology inscribed in the masculine ethos that put women, as a social group, in
an unfavourable position. A similar pattern has been detected in management. While
present in growing numbers, particularly at the lower ranks (Davidson and Burke, 2004),
women seem to have failed so far to transform the very nature of management as a social Women in Management Review
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2006
construction. The association between masculine values and management roles may be pp. 99-112
weakening, but the management discourse continues to be a place for the re-construction q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0964-9425
of masculinities (Kerfoot and Knights, 1996). DOI 10.1108/09649420610650684
WIMR The need to question the masculine norm that is still dominant in organizations and
21,2 management styles has been pointed out, to allow the qualities associated with the
feminine ethos to emerge (Tarrab and Simard, 1986; Martin, 1993; Fondas, 1997). Such
feminine qualities are perceived as facilitators to the access and promotion of women to
management positions (Rosener, 1990; Chen et al., 1997; Fondas, 1997). On the other
hand, it has been pointed out that in order to remain competitive organizations have to
100 adopt flatter and more flexible structures and demand new management styles that
seem to require values and characteristics more in line with the traditional feminine
image. Some authors (Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990; Martin, 1993; Smith, 1997) have
argued that as a result of the increased demographic feminisation of management,
women will tend to developed new feminine ways of managing rather than conforming
to the masculine management model. However, there is little evidence that the feminine
values are spreading in management. In fact, the so-called feminine qualities are still
considered amongst the least important to the organizational success (Grant, 1988).
And the adoption of a “feminine management” discourse is often used for window
dressing purposes or to create an illusion of equal opportunities between genders while
inhibiting a critical analysis of the assumptions that sustain the dominant masculine
world, thus preventing an effective process of social change (Calas and Smircich, 1993).
Rather than challenging the dominant masculine paradigm, women seem to have
elected their own masculinization as the most effective survival strategy and means to
succeed and to be accepted in the work contexts (Still, 1994). When reaching
institutional power positions, women tend to adopt the rational discourse that grants
them credibility and career success (Kerfoot and Knights, 1998). For many women, to
be successful implies suppressing attitudes and behaviours seen as typically feminine
or inappropriate for leadership and management positions (Grant, 1988). The socially
privileged masculinity constitutes a “way of being” not only for men but also for
women (Kerfoot and Knights, 1996).
Despite the increasing number of women in management positions and in
management education (Davidson and Burke, 2004), it is generally accepted that the
social stereotype of the manager remains masculine, leading to biased decisions
against women when it comes to recruiting, selecting, promoting, training, and
compensating managers (Schein, 1973, 1975; Powell and Butterfield, 1979, 1989;
Brenner et al., 1989; Schein and Mueller, 1992; Schein and Davidson, 1993; Foster, 1994;
Orser, 1994; Schein et al., 1996). Women are perceived by subordinates and other
managers as less able than men to perform their management jobs (Garland and Price,
1977; Davidson and Cooper, 1992; Powell, 1993; Tharenou et al., 1994; Bhatnagar and
Swamy, 1995; Norris and Wylie, 1995; Alvesson and Billing, 1997; Adler, 2000; Burke
and Nelson, 2002). Women managers tend to view their own management styles as
different from what they perceive to be the successful top manager (Vinnicombe and
Singh, 2002). In other words, stereotype expectations linking the social image of the
manager to a masculine reference forces whoever performs the managers’ role to do it
as men (Terborg and Ilgen, 1975; Antal and Izraeli, 1993; Nogueira, 1995).
Although only minor differences have been detected between the practices of
women managers and men managers (Powell, 1990, 1993; Wajcman, 1996), symbolic
differences in the social construction of gender subcategories associated with
management persist and contribute to legitimise gender discrimination. The feminine
stereotype is associated with relational and dependent individuals who are only valued
when performing the traditional roles of women: lover, mother and housewife The social
(Deaux et al., 1985). stereotypes
Some changes have been detected in the last 30 years in the contents of the image of
the female manager rendering it closer to the image of the male manager (Kirchler,
1992; Rodler et al., 2001). Studies using female samples have described the female
manager as ambitious, direct and determined individuals (Deal and Stevenson, 1998).
Success orientation, leadership ability, and competence, typical dimensions of the 101
masculine stereotype (Kerfoot and Knights, 1996; Fletcher, 1998) are also incorporated
into the stereotype of the female manager. The prototype of the manager is, therefore,
masculine and adopted as referent when describing the female manager. The
masculinization of the social stereotype of the female manager is a process intended to
legitimise the presence of women in a social role that does not “fit” the feminine
stereotype (Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1988).
A competent woman is also likely to be seen as less feminine, though the loss of
feminine attributes is also associated with negative descriptions and attitudes towards
women managers, in particular, when responses of male subjects are taken into account
(Dubno, 1985). Men often show negative attitudes toward women managers even when
they have been successful (Smith and Smith, 1994). In that case, negative attributes are
likely to be used to describe the female manager, such as coldness, selfishness and
irascibleness (Heilman et al., 1989), and frigid, nervous, passive, unstable, reserved, shy,
prone to waste time and postpone decisions, easily influenced, and with a strong need for
social acceptance (Deal and Stevenson, 1998). In other studies, undergraduate students
of both sexes characterise women managers as less trustful (Yoder and Schleicher, 1996),
and less able to manage their emotions (Baack et al., 1993).
The process of masculinization of the female manager has been unable to associate
the feminine subcategory with the image of a successful manager. Even when the
female manager is presented as a successful manager, the differences between this
target and the male manager remain in the attributes considered central to the
performance of the manager’s role (Heilman et al., 1989). These attributions contribute
to understanding gender differences in career progression. On the other hand, men’s
success in performing a task is related to competence and intentional effort while
women’s is related to effort and good luck, and men’s failure is related to bad luck,
while women’s is related to incompetence (Taynor and Deaux, 1973; Deaux, 1984;
O’Leary and Ickovics, 1992; Powell, 1993). It seems that the feminine stereotype does
not include competence and expectations of success (O’Leary and Ickovics, 1992;
Bhatnagar and Swamy, 1995). In other words, women’s behaviour is perceived as
unstable and their success, when it occurs, is attributed to favourable circumstances
unlike men’s success that is explained by internal attributions (Deaux, 1984). In sum,
causal attributions for the success of women managers are related to the general
attitudes towards women managers, and individuals resist changing their attitudes
towards women in management that are not consistent with the attitudes they already
have towards them (Garland and Price, 1977).

The study of social stereotypes of male and female managers among

management students
The central aim of this paper is to examine the social stereotypes of male and female
managers as perceived by management male and female students, thus helping to
WIMR understand the inequalities that persist between men and women in the management
21,2 context.
The study was conducted in Portugal. In this country, women make about
42 percent of the fulltime workforce. In management positions, an increasing number
of women can also be found, particularly in the public sector and at the lower
management ranks. At the turn of the century, women made about 27 percent of all
102 management positions (up from about 23 percent in the mid-nineties), and over
50 percent in some areas of the service sector (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). But at the very
top and according to the same study, about 93 percent of the population of managers is
men. The figures available show that the participation rate of women in management
and in the labour force has evolved in Portugal along the same lines of other western
economies (Davidson and Burke, 2004).
Women are also attending higher education in growing numbers. Nearly two-thirds
of all Portuguese undergraduate students are women (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004). In the
specific area of management education, gender figures are close to parity, both among
students and faculty. But despite the progress made when comparisons are made
between different generations of women, the picture looks less optimistic when the
roles of men and women are compared in today’s Portuguese society. Occupational
segregation is still very strong, and women’s access to key positions in business and
politics remains very limited. Keeping traditional roles in the family and the long-hours
culture in the workplace has certainly contributed to the preservation of gender
asymmetries reflected in the social stereotypes of male and female managers.
As pointed out above, the feminine subcategory appears to be constructed with
masculine contents, which then becomes the referent for both sexes. However, while
the masculine meanings are likely to describe an individual that tends to be context
free (whose performance and behaviour is explained by internal attributions), the
feminine meanings are likely to reflect the conflict between the private and the public
contexts. In other words, despite the masculinization of the social stereotype of the
female manager, they are still valued by their ability to perform the traditional multiple
roles of women, roles that combine the public and the private sphere.
It is admitted that management students of both sexes are likely to share the
traditional management meanings associated with the masculine ethos that tend to
associate managers in general to contents of instrumentality and expertise related to
the workplace. However, as future managers, management students may have a
decisive effect in changing the social stereotypes of the male and the female manager,
which renders the study of management students particularly interesting.
The methodology followed the procedure described by Fernandes and
Cabral-Cardoso (2003), though considering only two targets: the female and the male
manager. The study was conducted in a management school, in which over
500 students are enrolled in the undergraduate management programme.
In the first part of the study, devoted to the design of the questionnaire, students
were invited to participate in an exercise of free association of words, in which they
were asked to list all the words that they relate to a target category. Thirty-six students
(22 females and 14 males) were asked to make a description of the woman manager,
and 34 students (20 females and 14 males) described the male manager. A total of
148 descriptive attributes and expressions mentioned at least two respondents were
collected in this exercise, and included in the questionnaire.
 The second part of the study took place a few months later. A sample of 99 students The social
(51 female and 48 male) not involved in the first part was then invited to fill in the stereotypes
questionnaire. The exercise was undertaken in a randomly selected class, and
the composition of the sample reflects the gender distribution of the students in the
programme. Respondents were asked to associate those attributes and expressions to
the two categories – the male and the female manager. The order of presentation of the
two categories varied between subjects. It is admitted that the respondents might be 103
induced to perceive the category that first appears in the questionnaire as the referent
one. By changing the order of appearance of the two categories, such a presentation
bias is likely to be diluted.

Findings
The social stereotypes of the female and male managers’ categories were obtained with
the attributes and expressions that were pointed out by both male and female
respondents as characteristic or non-characteristic of each category. Non-characteristic
items are also considered relevant indicators of the way subjects perceive that
category.
When comparing the contents of the social stereotypes of the male and the female
manager, it is observed that they share most of the items. The common items are
mainly related to instrumental aspects of management typically portrayed in manuals
and textbooks, such as “expertise”, “competence”, and the ability to “meet challenges”,
“plan”, “take decisions”, and “adjust to new environmental conditions”.
Items included in the male manager stereotype and excluded from the female
manager stereotype tend to be related to assertiveness (“assertive”, “firm”, “insightful”,
“confident”), behavioural and cognitive flexibility (“creative”, “resourceful”, “busy”),
“successfulness”, “devotion”, and “power”, plus the non-characteristic item “domestic
work”. The inclusion of the latter is particularly interesting since it reveals the
exclusion of the private context from the male manager stereotype. Analysing
the replies from male and female students separately, some differences can also be
detected. Whereas female students underline the “ambition” and “commitment”, and
the capacity to “meet challenges”, “influence the course of events”, and “take
decisions”, the male sample mentioned the “work” and the “devotion to the profession”,
“activeness”, and “willingness to act” present in male managers.
The female manager stereotype, on the other hand, includes only two items that
were absent from their male counterparts: “ability to motivate others”, plus the
non-characteristic “disorganised”. For the female manager, the items “capable of
relating to others”, “devoted to her profession”, and “company” obtained the highest
count in the replies from both sexes, underlining the importance of the relational and
contextual aspects in this subcategory. However, when only the replies of female
students are taken into account, “active” and “capable of taking decisions” come out as
very characteristic, followed by other instrumental attributes such as “competent”,
“objective”, “pragmatic”, “organised”, “hard worker”, and “work”.
Following the procedure adopted by Schein (1973, 1975), the degree of the
resemblance between the descriptions of the female and the male manager was
estimated by computing the intraclass correlation coefficients (r 0 s) and conducting the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the mean ratings and intraclass coefficients.
According to this procedure, “the smaller the with-item variability, relative to the
WIMR between-item variability, the greater the similarity between the mean item rating”
21,2 (Schein et al., 1996, p. 36) of the female and the male manager. In other words, the larger
the value of r0 , the more similar to the intraclass observations are relative to the
observations taken in different classes. The analysis was conducted for both sexes and
then separately for the male and female samples, as shown in Table I. The classes
(or groups) were made up with the items that were integrated in the consensual
104 descriptions of the two subcategories.
The results reveal a significant resemblance between the ratings of female and male
managers in all three samples. Judging from these figures, it looks as if there is no
reason to think that respondents differ in the way they perceive female and male
managers. However, when ANOVA is conducted for each stereotype, having the
attributes used to describe the male and the female manager as dependent variables,
and the respondents’ sex as the independent variable, some differences were detected.
It is observed that the description of the male manager is more consensual than the
female manager’s. In the former, significant differences between sexes were only
detected for two items (“ambitious”, F ¼ 4.700, p , 0.05; and “entrepreneur”,
F ¼ 4.226; p , 0.05), whereas in the latter significant differences were found in the
27 items that were associated with the female manager.
When the two subcategories are compared, significant differences were found in a
number of items: the male manager is more “ambitious” (F ¼ 9.283; p , 0.01), less
“organised” (F ¼ 4.082; p , 0.05), and more “powerful” (F ¼ 6.140; p , 0.05) than the
female manager. The “domestic chores” are also associated with the female manager,
and considered non-characteristic of the male manager (F ¼ 12.528; p , 0.01). But,
overall, the social stereotypes of the male and the female manager are relatively close
given the large number of items used to describe them that they have in common (with
the few exceptions point out above), and the results obtained in the ANOVA of mean
ratings and intraclass coefficients (Table I).
Considering now the items included in just one of the subcategories, it is clear that
the male manager tends to be closer to the female manager in only two items (“capable
of motivating others”, and in the non-characteristic item “disorganised”) that
were associated with the female manager. But the female manager subcategory tends

Samples df Mean square F r0 Sig.

Both sexes
Female and male manager
Between items 50 0.49 0.35 0.96 0.00 *
Within items 51 0.89
Male students
Female and male manager
Between items 50 0.44 82.92 0.92 0.00 *
Within items 51 0.02
Female students
Female and male manager
Between items 50 0.54 21.44 0.91 0.00 *
Table I. Within items 51 0.03
ANOVA mean ratings
and intraclass coefficients Note: *p , 0.001
to be closer to the male manager in seven items (“busy”, “successful”, “creative”, The social
“devoted”, “firm”, “confident”, and “resourceful”) that were only used to describe the stereotypes
male manager. It seems from these findings that the female manager is more similar to
the male manager than the other way round, pointing out the masculine target as the
referent used by the respondents.
On the other hand, taking the replies from the female sample separately, it comes
out of the data that female students perceive significant differences between male and 105
female managers in a number of items: “ambitious” (F ¼ 11.688; p , 0.01), “organised”
(F ¼ 8.613; p , 0.01), “competent” (F ¼ 8.766; p , 0.01), “communicative” (F ¼ 7.080;
p , 0.01), “practical” (F ¼ 5.440; p , 0.05), “responsible” (F ¼ 4.224; p , 0.05),
“sociable” (F ¼ 4.342; p , 0.05), and “disorganised” (F ¼ 6.616; p , 0.05).
Considering the averages obtained for the two subcategories, it appears that female
students tend to underline qualities such as competence, method, pragmatism, and
sociability among female managers. But they do not distinguish the two subcategories
in other instrumental attributes usually associated with the manager in management
textbooks, such as the capacity to plan, take decisions, influence, adapt to new
circumstances, and meet challenges. “Domestic chores” were also found more
non-characteristic of male than female managers.
Considering now separately the replies from the male sample, significant
differences in the way male and female managers are perceived were detected in
just three items related with the context in which the manager’s role is performed:
“company” (F ¼ 4.273; p , 0.05); “finance” (F ¼ 5.308; p , 0.05); and “economic
power” (F ¼ 7.049; p , 0.01). In other words, male subjects perceive this context as
more characteristic of the male manager than they do of the female manager. In
contrast with the results obtained from the female students, no significant differences
between the two subcategories came out of the data in the item “domestic chores”. It
seems that male students perceive female managers as separated from the private
context defined as a specific part of the feminine ethos (Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1988).
To take the analysis further, a principal components analysis was conducted for
each stereotype. The results are shown in Tables II and III. The tables show the factor
loadings, the percentage of variance explained and the internal consistency of each
factor. The results for both stereotypes reveal the instrumental and dominant contents
traditionally associated with the masculine ethos. The meanings related to
expressiveness and affections traditionally associated with the feminine ethos
appear not to integrate the stereotypes.
Factor 1 of the male manager stereotype (Table II) seems to describe a manager
whose merit results from his individual characteristics. It looks as if being a man will
naturally give him all the necessary resources to become a manager. The remaining
factors of this subcategory (Table II) reflect a determined and assertive individual
(Factor 2), and an individual that is capable of handling the competitive business
environment (Factor 3), is success driven (Factor 4), devoted to his profession (Factor
5), associated with the economic power and the business (Factor 6), and able to work
under stress (Factor 7).
Factor 1 for the female manager (Table III) contains the abilities and qualities that
are normally presented in course contents and textbooks as management
characteristics, and attributes related with interpersonal abilities required for
relational leadership styles were also included. Some studies have found that these
WIMR
Factor 1 Variance explained: 21.15 per cent Capable of influencing (0.56); competent (0.61);
21,2 Reliability: 0.96 creative (0.51); determined (0.65); committed (0.54);
entrepreneur * (0.52); innovator (0.79); intelligent
(0.61); interested (0.74); leader (0.67); fighter (0.72);
objective (0.68); organised (0.62); perspicacious (0.79);
practical (0.64); secure (0.68); sociable (0.67); hard
106 worker (0.51); versatile (0.52)
Factor 2 Variance explained: 16.54 per cent Active (0.61); willing to act (0.77); assertive (0.70);
Reliability: 0.93 well informed (0.63); capable of assuming challenges
(0.67); capable of influence (0.50); capable of planning
(0.63); capable of adapting (0.55); capable of relating
to others (0.68); capable of taking decisions (0.63);
competent (0.55); communicative (0.62); devoted
(0.51); organised (0.51)
Factor 3 Variance explained: 6.63 per cent Competitive (0.78); executive (0.73); responsible (0.55)
Reliability: 0.78
Factor 4 Variance explained: 5.23 per cent Ambitious * (0.80); successful (0.52)
Reliability: 0.65
Factor 5 Variance explained: 5.04 per cent Devoted to his profession (0.58)
Factor 6 Variance explained: 4.73 per cent Company (0.73); finances (0.74); economic power
Reliability: 0.73 (0.82)
Factor 7 Variance explained: 4.40 per cent Able to work under stress (0.73)
Factor 8 Variance explained: 3.83 per cent Work (0.74)
Table II. Factor 9 Variance explained: 3.17 per cent Domestic chores (0.77)
Factor analysis for the
social stereotype of the Notes: Differences between sexes for each item considered (ANOVA *sex) *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01,
male manager * * *p , 0.001; only the items that scored equal or higher than 0.50 were presented

Factor 1 Variance explained: 16.47 per cent Reliability: Capable of planning * (0.56); capable of
0.94 adapting * * (0.63); capable of relating to
others * * (0.80); capable of taking
decisions * * (0.51); communicative * *
(0.57); able of motivating others (0.66);
objective * * (0.53); organised * * (0.52);
sociable * * (0.62)
Factor 2 Variance explained: 11.80 per cent Determined (0.57); committed * (0.62);
Reliability: 0.87 entrepreneur (0.59); executive (0.77);
fighter * * (0.52); rational (0.61)
Factor 3 Variance explained: 11.12 per cent Able to work under stress (0.71); ambitious
Reliability: 0.85 (0.67); self-confident * (0.59); capable of
taking challenges * * (0.56); capable of
influence * (0.67); capable of planning *
(0.56)
Factor 4 Variance explained: 11.04 per cent Active * * (0.67); willing to act * * (0.62);
Reliability: 0.87 competent * * * (0.54); disorganised (-.74)
ANOVA Factor * Sex (F ¼ 3.974,
p , 0.05)
Factor 5 Variance explained: 10.17 per cent Company (0.64); finances (0.77); work * *
Reliability: 0.78 (0.70)
Table III. Factor 6 Variance explained: 9.6 per cent Efficient * * (0.71)
Factor analysis for social
stereotype of the female Notes: Differences between sexes for each item considered (ANOVA *sex) *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01,
manager * * *p , 0.001; only the items that scored equal or higher than 0.50 were presented
abilities are likely to be accepted when the manager is a woman (Eagly and Johnson, The social
1990; Eagly et al., 1992). In the case of the female manager (Table III), the factors seem stereotypes
to portray the executive qualities required to perform the executive role (Factor 1), a
determined and committed individual who takes the initiative and is prepared to fight
for it (Factor 2), an ambitious and influential figure capable of working under stress
(Factor 3), and an active and organised person (Factor 4).
An additional analysis was conducted for the separate replies obtained from male 107
and female students, in order to examine the attributes and expressions used by
students of the same sex to describe male and female managers. The results indicate
that the items chosen by females to describe the social stereotype of the female
manager are relatively close to the ones used to describe the social stereotype of the
male manager. Items such as “economic power”, “winner”, and “successful” were used
by female students to describe the female manager, which appears to reflect a
perception of the female manager as an exceptional woman, with characteristics and
qualities very different from what is normally associated with women in general. The
description of the female manager also includes some contents that are related
to the feminine ethos, such as the physical appearance and devotion. On the other hand,
the description of the male manager that emerges from the replies of male students
portrays an individual with an image of success (“winner”), while remaining “serious”
and “honourable”, and “able to motivate others”. And no link is established between
the male manager and the private context of his life, be it family or leisure.

Discussion and conclusions

As expected, the results obtained in this study indicate that the social stereotypes of
the female and the male manager are relatively close and reflecting the dimensions of
instrumentality and rationality associated with the work and the management
contexts. The two subcategories are perceived as having the qualities normally
associated with management and reinforced in course contents and textbooks (e.g.
capable of influencing, planning, taking decisions and adapting to new circumstances).
Other personal or professional attributes are added such as tenacity, assertiveness,
competitiveness, control, rationality, determination, sociability, pragmatism,
objectiveness, and leadership. The contents of the two subcategories seem relatively
close to the characteristics traditionally associated with the masculine ethos, meaning
that the masculine is adopted as the universal referent to describe both of them
(Lorenzi-Cioldi, 1988). Although the social stereotypes of the female and the male
manager are relatively close, the findings show that the female manager is closer to the
male manager than the other way round. In fact, the male manager shares two
attributes that were only associated with the female manager, whereas the female
manager shares nine attributes that were only associated with the male manager.
In sum, the social stereotype of the male manager seems to work as the referent for
managers in general.
It appears that when her social role does not fit into the normative orientations of
the feminine stereotype the woman is perceived as masculine. That is the case of the
female manager identified with the instrumental contents of her role. This
masculinization of the social image of the female manager can be viewed as a
strategy used by the subjects in general to justify and explain the presence of women in
a context that is not adequate to the stereotype of their gender group. By doing this the
WIMR subjects protect their feminine being that remains prisoner of the private and affective
21,2 relationships, and the social roles that are performed in this context, such as the role of
mother, wife, lover, and housewife. It is worth noting that the more instrumental image
of the female manager is particularly emphasised by female students who tend to
enhance the attributes and expressions that constitute the stereotype of the female
manager and give a bigger contribution to the description of this subcategory. The
108 findings obtained in this study also indicate that the female manager subcategory is
perceived as masculine, but is not associated with negative attributes, as suggested in
the literature.
For the male manager significant differences between sexes were only found in two
of the items that integrate this stereotype, thus showing some consensus about the
representation of the male manager. Such an agreement was not found with regard to
the female manager. In contrast with what was pointed out for the female manager, the
picture of the man performing the management role that emerges from this study is
one in which management is a “natural” role for a man to play.
The contextualization of the male manager stereotype, particularly related to
“finance” and “company” in the replies obtained from male students, seems to suggest
the “natural” dominance of men in the economic sphere. This indicates that regardless
of the social and professional changes that took place in western societies, power and
economic power, in particular, still has a masculine face.
Briefly, the social stereotype of the male manager seems to value his personal and
individual attributes more than his professional skills. This link between management
and the manager’s personality means that the male manager is primarily a man before
he becomes a manager. In the social stereotype of the female manager, her individual
characteristics are valued but in association with her management skills, implying that
those characteristics are relevant but only in the extent to which they are part of a
particular organizational context through processes like planning, decision-making,
and motivating others. According to Eagly and Johnson (1990), this is a critical element
for women to be accepted in the management world. In other words, the individual
playing the management role is more visible if it happens to be a male manager. If it
happens to be a female manager, her acceptance depends on the role she plays and
whether that role conforms to the female gender stereotype.
As expected, the private sphere and, more specifically, the “domestic chores” came
out of the data as an element of differentiation between the male and the female
manager. For the male manager, this item came out as non-characteristic, thus
confirming the widespread perception of the domestic tasks as “not suitable for men”
or “not men’s business”. The male manager is a public figure and the social stereotype
of this subcategory is constructed around the recognition and prestige achieved in the
social roles performed in the public sphere. Men are rarely criticised when they invest
exclusively in their professional life while women are very often subject to social
criticism when their professional ambition is understood as being detrimental to their
family life (Janman, 1989).
Responses from the male students are particularly clear in supporting the
separation between the public and private spheres, by rejecting any relationship
between male and female managers and their private contexts. They see the female
manager as part of her work context, therefore separated from her private context and
her feminine being. On the contrary, female students seem aware of the separation
between private and public contexts, while acknowledging the difficulties women face The social
when they assume management positions and keep their family roles. In the stereotypes
description of the female manager by the female students, it is apparent the recognition
of the feminine subcategory as an exceptional woman who pursues a professional route
that does not represent a collective destiny. However, male students describe the male
manager as a “winner” but they reject the view that the male manager’s route is a
singular trajectory in the men’s destiny. 109
In sum, the social stereotypes of the female and the male manager point out towards
an asymmetric relationship of the meanings associated with each of these
subcategories. Evidence was provided that confirms the persistent role of the male
manager as referent. On the contrary, the legitimisation of female managers in a
context that remains predominantly masculine requires remarkable management
qualities and characteristics that are not traditionally associated with the feminine
being. For that reason, promoting the recognition and acceptance of women in
management requires one step further than the simple demographic feminisation
of management. It requires questioning the symbolic meanings embedded in the
management discourse and social practices that keeps the masculine as the referent
and creates an asymmetric relationship between the meanings associated with women
and men in management positions.
Despite the contribution made to the understanding of the social stereotypes of the
male and the female manager further research is required, namely of a qualitative
nature, in order to shed more light into the current transformations that are taking
place in the professional and private lives of individuals. A challenging programme for
the way forward also means not thinking about gender as a dichotomy and start
voicing the diversity of women and men managers as individuals. In the work context,
it also means challenging the view of family support policies as policies made for
women rather than policies for individuals in general.

References
Adler, N. (2000), “An international perspective on the barriers to the advancement of women
managers”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 42, pp. 289-300.
Alvesson, M. and Billing, Y.D. (1997), Understanding Gender and Organizations, Sage, London.
Antal, A.B. and Izraeli, D.N. (1993), “A global comparison of women in management: women
managers in their homelands and as expatriates”, in Fagenson, E.A. (Ed.), Women in
Management, Trends, Issues and Challenge in Managerial Diversity, Sage, Newbury Park,
CA, pp. 52-93.
Baack, J., Carr-Ruffino, N. and Pelletier, M. (1993), “Making to the top: specific leadership skills, a
comparison of male and female perception of skills needed by women and men managers”,
Women in Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 17-23.
Bhatnagar, D. and Swamy, R. (1995), “Attitudes toward women as managers: does interaction
make a difference?”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 11, pp. 1285-307.
Brenner, O.C., Tomkiewicz, J. and Schein, V.E. (1989), “The relationship between sex role
stereotypes and requisite management characteristics revisited”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 662-9.
Burke, R.J. and Nelson, D.L. (2002), “Advancing women in management: progress ands
prospects”, in Burke, R.J. and Nelson, D.L. (Eds), Women’s Careers, Blackwell, London,
pp. 3-14.
WIMR Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004), “Women in management in Portugal”, in Davidson, M.J. and Burke,
R.J. (Eds), Women in Management Worldwide: Facts, Figures and Analysis, Ashgate
21,2 Publishing, Oxford, pp. 83-98.
Calas, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1993), “Dangerous liaisons: the ‘feminine-in-management’ meets
‘globalization’”, Business Horizons, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-8.
Chen, C.C., Yu, K.C. and Miner, J.B. (1997), “Motivation to manage: a study of women in Chinese
110 state-owned enterprises”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 160-73.
Davidson, M.J. and Burke, R.J. (Eds) (2004), Women in Management Worldwide: Facts,
Figures and Analysis, Ashgate Publishing, Oxford.
Davidson, M.J. and Cooper, C.L. (1992), Shattering the Glass Ceiling: The Women Manager, Paul
Chapman, London.
Deal, J.J. and Stevenson, M.A. (1998), “Perceptions of female and male managers in the 1990s:
plus ça change”, Sex Roles, Vol. 38 Nos 3/4, pp. 287-300.
Deaux, K. (1984), “From individual differences to social categories: analysis of a decade’s
research on gender”, American Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 105-16.
Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M. and Lewis, L.L. (1985), “Level of categorization and content
of gender stereotypes”, Social Cognition, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 145-67.
Dubno, P. (1985), “Attitudes toward women executives: a longitudinal approach”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 235-9.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 233-56.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G. and Klonsky, B.G. (1992), “Gender and the evaluation of leader: a
meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Fernandes, E. and Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2003), “Gender asymmetries and the manager stereotype
among management students”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 18 Nos 1/2, pp. 77-87.
Fletcher, J.K. (1998), “Relational practices – feminist reconstruction of work”, Journal of
Management Inquiry, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 163-86.
Fondas, N. (1997), “Feminization unveiled: management qualities in contemporary writings”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 257-82.
Foster, F. (1994), “Managerial sex role stereotyping among academic staff within UK business
schools”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 17-22.
Garland, H. and Price, K.H. (1977), “Attitudes toward women in management and attributions for
their success and failure in managerial position”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 62
No. 1, pp. 29-33.
Grant, J. (1988), “Women as managers: what they can offer to organizations”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 56-63.
Heilman, E.M., Block, J.C., Martell, F.R. and Simon, C.M. (1989), “Has anything changed? Current
characterizations of man, women, and managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74
No. 6, pp. 935-42.
Helgesen, S. (1990), The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership, Doubleday Currency,
New York, NY.
Janman, K. (1989), “One step behind: current stereotypes of women, achievement, and work”,
Sex Roles, Vol. 21 Nos 3/4, pp. 209-30.
Kerfoot, D. and Knights, D. (1996), “The best is yet to come? The quest for embodiment in
managerial work”, in Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. (Eds), Men as Managers, Managers as
 Men: Critical Perspectives on Men, Masculinities, and Managements, Sage, London, The social
pp. 78-98.
stereotypes
Kerfoot, D. and Knights, D. (1998), “Managing masculinity in contemporary organizational life: a
managerial project”, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 7-26.
Kirchler, E. (1992), “Adorable woman, expert man: changing gender images of women and men
in management”, European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 22, pp. 363-73.
Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (1988), Individus Dominants et Groupes Dominés: Images Masculines et 111
Féminines, Presses Universitaires de Grenoble, Grenoble.
Martin, P.Y. (1993), “Feminist practice in organizations: implications for management”, in
Fagenson, E.A. (Ed.), Women in Management, Trends, Issues, and Challenge in
Managerial Diversity, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 274-96.
Nogueira, C. (1995), “Gender representations and perceptions of managerial success”, in
Amâncio, L. and Nogueira, C. (Eds), Gender, Management and Science, Instituto de
Educação e Psicologia da Universidade do Minho, Braga, pp. 73-82.
Norris, J. and Wylie, M.A. (1995), “Gender stereotype of the managerial role among students in
Canada and the United States”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 167-82.
O’Leary, V.E. and Ickovics, J.R. (1992), “Cracking the glass ceiling: overcoming isolation and
alienation”, in Sekaran, U. and Leong, F.T.L. (Eds), Womanpower: Managing in Times of
Demographic Turbulence, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 7-30.
Orser, B. (1994), “Sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics: an international
perspective”, Women in Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 11-19.
Powell, G.N. (1990), “One more time: do female and male managers differ?”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 68-75.
Powell, G.N. (1993), Women and Men in Management, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (1979), “The ‘good manager’: masculine or androgynous?”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 395-403.
Powell, G.N. and Butterfield, D.A. (1989), “He ‘good manager’: did androgyny fare better in the
1980s?”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 216-33.
Rodler, C., Kirchler, E. and Holzl, E. (2001), “Gender stereotypes of leaders: an analysis of the
contents of obituaries from 1974 to 1998”, Sex Roles, Vol. 45 Nos 11/12, pp. 827-43.
Rosener, J. (1990), “Ways women lead”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 119-25.
Schein, V.E. (1973), “The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 95-100.
Schein, V.E. (1975), “Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management
characteristics among female managers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 3,
pp. 340-4.
Schein, V.E. and Davidson, M.J. (1993), “Think manager, think male”, Management Development
Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 24-9.
Schein, V.E. and Mueller, R. (1992), “Sex role stereotyping and requisite management
characteristics: a cross cultural look”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 5,
pp. 439-47.
Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T. and Liu, J. (1996), “Think manager – think male: a global
phenomenon”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Smith, D.M. (1997), “Women and leadership”, in Northouse, P.G. (Ed.), Leadership, Theory and
Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 204-36.
WIMR Smith, P.L. and Smith, S.J. (1994), “The feminization of leadership”, Training & Development,
Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 43-6.
21,2 Still, V. (1994), “Where to from here? Women in management: the cultural dilemma”, Women in
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 3-10.
Tarrab, G. and Simard, C. (1986), Une Gestion au Féminin? Nouvelles Réalités, Éditions
G. Vermette, Boucherville.
112 Taynor, J. and Deaux, K. (1973), “When women are more deserving than men: equity, attribution
and perceived sex differences”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 28 No. 3,
pp. 360-7.
Terborg, J.R. and Ilgen, D.R. (1975), “A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally
masculine occupations”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 352-76.
Tharenou, P., Latimer, S. and Conroy, D. (1994), “How do you make to the top? An examination of
influences on women’s and men’s managerial advancement”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 889-931.
Vinnicombe, S. and Singh, V. (2002), “Sex role stereotyping of successful top managers”, Women
in Management Review, Vol. 17 Nos 3/4, pp. 120-30.
Wajcman, J. (1996), “Desperately seeking differences: is management style gendered?”, British
Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 34, pp. 3, 333-50.
Yoder, J.D. and Schleicher, T.L. (1996), “Undergraduates regard deviation from occupational
gender stereotypes as costly for women”, Sex Roles, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, pp. 171-88.

Further reading
Burke, R.J. (1994), “Women on corporate boards of directors, forces for change?”, Women in
Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 27-31.

About the authors

Emı́lia Fernandes graduated in psychology at the University of Porto, and obtained a MSc
degree in Human Resource Management at the University of Minho (Portugal) where she is an
assistant at the School of Economics and Management, since 1998. She is currently a doctoral
student at the same university. Her research interests fall into the fields of gender and
organizational studies. She is particularly interested in the role of management education in
shaping the behaviour of women in management. Emı́lia Fernandes is the corresponding author
and can be contacted at: mifernandes@eeg.uminho.pt
Carlos Cabral-Cardoso is an Associate Professor of Management at the School of Economics
and Management, University of Minho, Portugal, where he is responsible for postgraduate
studies in the fields of organizational behaviour and human resource management. He received
his PhD from the University of Manchester (UK). He has published in the Journal of Management
Education, Journal of Business Ethics, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
International Journal of Innovation Management, Career Development International, Women in
Management Review, and IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. Several other
contributions were made to edited books and Portuguese journals.

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

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