1 Introduction

1.1 Definitions

1.1.1 Gender

Since the 1970s researchers have noted the need to differentiate between gender and sex (Bem, 1974; Spence, Helmreich, & Stapp, 1975), and they have defined gender (i.e. whether someone is a woman or man) as pertaining to the psychosocial ramifications of biological sex (i.e., whether they are female or male; Unger, 1979). Most often researchers operationalize gender by either observing the behavior of men and women or by asking them to selfreport whether they are male or female. In this article we use the term sociodemographic gender to refer to this aspect of gender. Gender, however, consists of much more than sociodemographic gender. Gender is a multidimensional and multilevel phenomenon with many different facets (Korabik, 1999). These include intrapsychic aspects such as gender schemas and stereotypes; gender-role identity;and gender-role traits, attitudes, and values (Bem, 1993). They also include the manner in which men and women interact with one another (Deaux & Major, 1987) and the social roles that they are expected to, and frequently do, enact in a society (Eagly, 1987). Moreover, gender is an ascribed status characteristic. Men’s higher social status means that they have more access to power and resources than women do and, consequently, they are accorded greater privilege (Ridgeway, 1992). Thus, gender is both “a hierarchical structure of opportunity and oppression as well as an affective structure of identity and cohesion” (Ferree, 1995, p. 125).

1.1.2 Culture

Many have debated the definition of culture (Triandis, 1996). Overall, most agree with Kluckhohn’s (1951) definition that culture is an acquired and transmitted pattern of shared meaning, feeling, and behavior that constitutes a distinctive human group. There are two reasons why it is necessary to distinguish among the definitions of culture, ethnicity, and gender. First, different leadership researchers have used different definitions when referring to these concepts. Second, leaders in a diverse and multicultural society need to become aware of these distinctions.

Although phenomenological discussions continue, culture primarily can be operationalized in two different ways, based on existing leadership research. The first is by means of characteristics that are visible and on the surface, such as country boundaries (House, Wright, & Aditya, 1997) or individuals’ physical characteristics (e.g., skin color, hair texture, eye shape). These visible characteristics allow for categorization of people into social groups (e.g., by country or nationality).

 

1.2 Perspectives on Gender and Leadership.

When one examines research on gender and leadership, it is important to distinguish between the manner in which the research has been carried out and the manner in which it has been interpreted. Most research on gender and leadership has been carried out by applying the sociodemographic definition of gender. Thus, a plethora of studies have been conducted examining how men and women differ from one another in their leadership style, behavior, and effectiveness. The authors of some of these studies did not specify a theory about why gender is expected to have an impact on leadership, whereas those of the remainder drew upon a number of different theoretical perspectives when interpreting their findings. These include androgyny theory (Bem, 1974), social role theory (Eagly, 1987), expectation states theory (Berger, Wagner, & Zelditch, 1985), and status characteristics theory (Ridgeway, 1992). To bring some conceptual clarity to the literature, Korabik and Ayman (2007) have delineated three of the most common theoretical positions that underlie the study of gender and leadership. These are the intrapsychic perspective, the social structural perspective, and the interpersonal perspective, respectively. Research done from the intrapsychic perspective focuses primarily on the internal intrapsychic characteristics of the leader. Here gender encompasses such things as gender schema; gender identity; and gender-role traits, attitudes, and values that are acquired through gender-role socialization. According to the intrapsychic perspective, the leader’s intrapsychic gender-role characteristics (e.g., instrumentality/masculinity/agency and expressivity/femininity/communion) matter because they affect the leader’s preferred style, behavior, and outcomes regardless of whether the leader is a man or a woman. Research done from this perspective might, for example, examine the impact that a leader’s gender-role orientation (i.e., instrumentality, expressivity, or androgyny) has on his or her behavior and the outcomes achieved. Some theorists who have adopted the social structural perspective focus on the different social roles that men and women are expected to play in society (Eagly, 1987). According to this formulation, the qualitative differences in men’s and women’s normative roles affect their leadership behavior and outcomes. Here, gender is important because the perception that men’s roles are more congruent with the leadership role than are those of women can result in prejudice against women leaders (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Other theorists who have adopted the social structural perspective have emphasized the status differences between men and women (Ridgeway, 1992). They have viewed sociodemographic gender as a visible status marker that affects others’ perceptions, observations, and evaluations of leaders. According to the social structural perspective, different outcomes will be attained by men and women leaders under certain conditions. This is because men are attributed higher status and privilege, and they are more likely to be in leadership roles that are congruent with their sociodemographic gender. In contrast, women are perceived as having lower status and less privilege, and the leadership role is seen as being incongruent with their sociodemographic gender. Meta-analytic findings support this perspective by indicating that women leaders are viewed as being less effective when they are in male-dominated settings or leadership roles that are defined as more masculine (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). The interpersonal interaction perspective focuses on how leaders interact with their superiors, coworkers, and subordinates. This approach incorporates aspects of  both the intrapsychic and social structural perspectives because interactions are viewed as a function of both sociodemographic gender cues, which are more visible and overt, and gender-related beliefs and expectations both about the self (schemas) and about others (stereotypes), which are less visible and more covert. In addition, these processes are influenced by situational cues (e.g., gender-typed tasks, skewed gender ratios in groups) that make gender more or less salient and induce priming. According to the interpersonal interaction perspective, gender makes a difference because men and women leaders will have different types of social interactions with their men and women supervisors, peers, and subordinates, and these interactions will influence the outcomes experienced by each party (Ayman, 1993; Korabik & Ayman, 2007). Korabik and Ayman (2007) proposed an integrative model of gender and leadership that combines elements from each of these three perspectives. Here leadership is seen as a social interaction between leaders and their supervisors, peers, and subordinates. The nature of this interaction is influenced by intrapsychic processes (e.g., gender role orientation, gender-role attitudes and values) in all of the parties. However, these processes are not as salient and observable as is someone’s sociodemographic gender. Therefore, sociodemographic gender acts as a marker of status and privilege, as well as of expectations about prescribed role behaviors. As such it is a cue that activates stereotypes and attributions that affect initial judgments and evaluations. These processes are moderated by a variety of contextual cues (e.g., gender-typed tasks, skewed gender ratios in groups). The literature on gender and leadership supports this model by demonstrating that the following play an important part in the leadership process: gender-role socialization; gender-role beliefs, attitudes, and expectations; gender stereotypes; gender-based status differentials; group gender composition; and the gendered nature of tasks.

1.3 Psychology of Discrimination against Leaders from Diverse Groups

Why would people engage in discrimination that makes it difficult for individuals from certain groups to serve in positions of leadership? Employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin became illegal with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (1988). Under many conditions, discrimination against workers with caregiving  responsibilities is also unlawful (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2007). Most important, job discrimination violates the consensual American value of equality of opportunity. Despite these considerations, discrimination remains commonplace in large part because it continues to proceed in covert, subtle, and unintentional forms even when its more blatant expressions are restrained (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). People can unknowingly  discriminate by means of “mindless” processes that operate beyond their conscious attentional focus, all the while thinking that they are merely choosing the best person for the job or otherwise acting in an unbiased manner (Bargh, 2007; Fazio, 2001;Lane, Kang, & Banaji, 2007).

1.4 Questions about How Leaders from Diverse Groups Lead

In addition to the issue of access to positions of leadership, questions arise concerning how leaders from diverse identity groups lead—that is, whether their differences from the majority group make a difference in behavior. Others’ expectations about how women or members of racial and ethnic minority groups should behave may constrain their leadership. Also, the social identities that represent people’s psychological relationships to their social groups can constrain their behavior (Frable, 1997; Phinney, 1990). The influences of others’ expectations and of personal identities are a frequent theme in the articles in this special issue. For example, Cheung and Halpern (2010) explain how some women import mothering metaphors into their understanding of leadership. Fassinger, Shullman, and Stevenson (2010) discuss whether the assumptions that leaders and followers make about sexuality constrain or enhance the capacities that lesbian, bisexual, gay, and transgendered leaders bring to leadership.  Sanchez-Hucles and Davis (2010) suggest that identities pertaining to race and ethnicity affect the ways in which individuals lead.

 

2. Leadership

2.1 Leader Behavior

The case of women’s leadership has been extensively researched (Eagly & Carli, 2007; Eagly & Karau, 2002). On the one hand, female leaders are expected to take charge and approach leadership in the same ways as their male colleagues. On the other hand, female leaders are expected to deliver the warmth and friendliness that is culturally prescribed for women. Simultaneously impressing others as a good leader and a good woman is an accomplishment that is not necessarily easy to achieve, and common pitfalls involve seeming to be “too masculine” or “too feminine.” Members of other “outsider” identity groups also encounter expectations that complicate their performance as leaders (see, e.g., Banks & Mona, 2007, for leaders with disabilities and Parker, 2005, for African American female executives). Negotiating the masculine and feminine apparently tends to push women leaders toward a relatively androgynous style of leadership that  incorporates culturally masculine and feminine elements. Research thus has demonstrated that women have a somewhat more democratic and participative leadership style than men, perhaps because people resist women who take charge in a particularly assertive manner. Female leaders are also somewhat more transformational in their leadership style than male leaders, especially in mentoring and developing workplace colleagues. And somewhat more than men, women adopt a positive managerial approach that trades on rewards rather than a negative approach that trades on reprimands. All of these tendencies have emerged in meta-analyses of studies of the leadership styles of women and men (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, & van Engen, 2003; Eagly & Johnson,1990; van Engen & Willemsen, 2004).Consistent with the power of leader roles to constrain leaders’ behavior is the finding that typical differences in the leadership styles of women and men are quite small when they occupy the same managerial role. Moreover, despite stereotype-based suspicions that women might not be effective leaders, the ways in which women differ from men in leadership style are generally associated with good managerial practices in current-day organizations (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004). In most contexts, top-down, command-and-control leaders no longer provide the most effective or admired type of leadership (Eagly & Carli, 2004, 2007; Kanter, 1997). In response to these changes, scholars of leadership have increasingly emphasized that effective leadership emerges from inspiring, motivating, and mentoring followers. Such leadership is embedded in interpersonal exchanges and dialogues in organizations in which leadership is distributed throughout the organization, as both followers and leaders take responsibility for adapting to challenges (e.g., Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995; Spillane, 2006).

2.2 Effectiveness of Leaders

Leaders from groups that have not typically had access to leadership positions encounter shifting beliefs about whether they can and do lead effectively. Others’ doubts can emerge from the application of cultural stereotypes, their preferences to associate with ingroup members, and their lack of insight concerning the potential benefits of the leadership styles of individuals from diverse identity groups (e.g., Ayman & Korabik, 2010; Cheung & Halpern,2010). In response to doubts about and resistance to their leadership, a strength-based rhetoric sometimes emerges among authors who write about leadership from the perspective of their own identity groups. Such rhetoric may involve explicit claims that their group’s ways of leading are better than those of the heterosexual White men who traditionally have exercised leadership. For example, several female managerial writers have provided particularly laudatory descriptions of women’s leadership styles as interactive and inclusive (e.g., Chin, Lott, Rice, & Sanchez-Hucles, 2007; Helgesen, 1990; Rosener, 1990). Related superiority claims have emerged concerning leadership by African American women (Parker, 2005; Parker & Ogilvie, 1996) and gay men (Snyder, 2006). Such claims can express the group pride that Pittinsky (2010) notes as well as a preference for one’s cultural ingroup that emerges in some collectivistic cultures (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004).

2.3 Culture and Leadership.

In a diverse workforce, people from different cultural or social groups must constantly interact with each other. In such settings, people’s own cultural identities and their assumptions about and perceptions of others from different social groups (e.g. White and African American, Latino and Asian) relate to ingroup– outgroup dynamics, and these assumptions and perceptions may have an impact on the leadership experience (Ayman, 2004a). In these types of situations, the composition of dyads or work groups based on their gender or culture matters because it can affect a leader’s ability to be successful. For example, in an experiment in which a Japanese leader behaved either as an American leader would or as a Japanese leader would, his American followers did not consider him to be as trustworthy when he was behaving like an American leader compared with when he behaved like a Japanese leader (Thomas & Ravlin, 1995). Moreover, the increasing diversity in today’s workforce means that to be effective, leaders need to develop a multicultural perspective and an understanding of the points of view of those who differ from themselves (Connerley & Pedersen, 2005). Doing so involves two things: (a) eliminating ethnocentrism (i.e., the belief that one’s cultural values are the same as everyone else’s, regardless of the evidence) and (b) increasing isomorphic attributions or the extent that people from culturally diverse social groups are able to reach a similar assessment of a given situation or action (Triandis, 1995). The elimination of ethnocentrism, by reducing the imposition of one’s frame of reference on others, can result in less hostile judgments toward those in outgroups (Duckitt, Callaghan, & Wagner, 2005)

2.4 Gender, Culture, and Leadership.

 To develop more inclusive theories of leadership, both emic and etic perspectives (Berry, 1997; Gelfand, Raver, & Ehrhart, 2002) need to be included. The emic approach means studying leadership from within a culture or a social group, whereas the etic approach allows for validation of theories and models of leadership across genders and cultural settings. A version of the etic approach, imposed etic, is when a theory or a measure developed within one social group is validated in another. In leadership, most theories have been developed in North America and embody a primarily ethnocentric viewpoint. One of the effects of this situation is that the theory can privilege certain types of scientific knowledge and marginalize other viewpoints (McIntosh, 2003). Leadership researchers rarely have done cross-cultural studies to learn the limitations of their theories. Moreover, when validating their theories on other groups or in other countries, they rely on an imposed etic approach. Their interest has not been to understand how the theories worked, but only in seeing that they worked. To form an allocentric theory, as Triandis (1995) advised, researchers need a more inclusive effort where scholars from various countries using differing methods come together to share and gradually put together the pieces of the puzzle. Furthermore, it is important to examine whether existing leadership constructs have similar equivalence of meaning across gender and cultures, as well as across sources (e.g., leader’s self-report and subordinates’ reports). As Raju, Laffitte, and Byrne (2002, p. 517) said, “Without measurement equivalence, it is difficult to interpret observed mean score differences meaningfully.” Findings from meta-analyses on gender or cultural differences in leadership, therefore, can be construed as representing true between-groups mean differences only once equivalence of meaning (i.e., measurement equivalence) has been established for these groups.

3 Gender and Culture in Leadership Research

Both culture and leadership and gender and leadership have been studied using an emic approach. For example, Misumi (1985) and Sinha (1984) have approached leadership from Japanese and Indian perspectives, respectively. Moreover, feminist researchers have explored women’s leadership experiences (see Chin, Lott, Rice, & Sanchez-Hucles, 2007). These studies have addressed the issue of whether women or people from different ethnocultural groups have unique ways of leading. In this article, however, we focus on the imposed etic approach to leadership as it pertains to gender and culture. Chemers’s (1997) integrative model of leadership explicitly acknowledged a role for culture and gender. In his model, gender and culture influence the leadership relationship in multiple ways (e.g., through social norms and the leader’s and subordinates’ interpretation of the situation). Both of these scholars have viewed gender and culture as leadership contingencies that are omnipresent in a diverse society and that cannot be ignored when leadership is studied. The main theories and models that we review include the following: trait approach (including leadership categorization or implicit leadership theory), behavior approaches (including the two-factor, transformational leadership, and leader–member exchange models), and contingency approaches (i.e., the contingency model of leadership effectiveness and the normative decision-making model). For each theoretical approach to leadership, we provide examples from the literature that illustrate why culture and gender matter.

The primary focus of the 62-country GLOBE research project (House et al., 2004) has been on establishing a universal model of leadership. Although specific findings about the interface of culture, gender, and leadership are still emerging, the picture that has been painted thus far is very complex. While some universals (such as value-based charismatic leadership) have been found, there is also extensive evidence that these universals are manifested in different ways in each region of the world. It may be that, as Graen (2006) has suggested, the research questions and approach used by GLOBE were too limited to portray a global picture of leadership. In support of this, van Emmerik, Euwema, and Wendt (2008) reviewed other research that indicates that certain leadership behaviors (e.g., the use of superiority, power, and close supervision) vary as a function of culture.

3.1 Implicit Leadership Theory.

To understand the traits associated with leaders, we first examine the literature on implicit leadership theory or leadership categorization. Implicit leadership theory examines the layperson’s understanding of leadership. Overall, the results of studies in this area have demonstrated strong context effects. That is, the traits associated with leadership vary depending on whether the leader is, for example, a manager, military officer, or politician (Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001). Studies of culture and implicit leadership are limited, but those that do exist show a variation in the content of implicit leadership across cultures (Ayman & Bassari, 2009; Gerstner & Day, 1994; Ling, Chia, & Fang, 2000). Much research has demonstrated that across raters’ age, work experience, and culture, the image of a leader is strongly associated with men and masculinity (Ayman-Nolley & Ayman, 2005; Heilman, 2001; Leffler, Ayman, & Ayman-Nolley, 2006; Schein, 2002). Furthermore, research shows that this stereotyped image develops as early as kindergarten (e.g., Ayman-Nolley & Ayman, 2005). However, these studies also have indicated that girls and women are not as likely to hold this masculine image of a leader as are boys and men. By and large, the fact that these stereotypes exist is detrimental to women’s ascent into leadership positions (Korabik, 1997).

3.2 Cultural Intelligence (CQ).

Recently scholars have focused on the relationship between CQ and leadership. CQ is related to enhanced effectiveness in dealing with both those from foreign cultures and those from different subcultures within one’s own culture (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Thus, it helps individuals meet the challenges of managing both globalization and workforce diversity. CQ has been shown to contribute to team, leadership, and managerial effectiveness in a number of settings (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008). Among the specific traits and competencies associated with CQ are self-monitoring, holding non ethnocentric attitudes (Abbe, Gulick, & Herman, 2008), and being open to experience (Ang & Van Dyne, 2008), all of which are discussed individually below.

3.3 Self-monitoring.

One trait that has been related to both leadership emergence and effectiveness is selfmonitoring (Day, Schleicher, Unckless, & Hiller, 2002). Self-monitoring is the extent to which individuals regulate their self-presentation to achieve a desired public appearance (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). In leadership research, self-monitoring is seen as an indicator of flexibility and responsiveness to social situations. Day et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis showed that self-monitoring was related to leadership ability by demonstrating that high self-monitors are promoted most often. Day et al. also reported, however, that women scored lower on self-monitoring than men. Based on this finding, it appears that women may have less chance of attaining leadership positions than do men. The results of a small group experiment supported this concept by demonstrating that self-monitoring was positively associated with leadership emergence more for men than for women (Ellis & Cronshaw, 1992). Further research on gender, leadership, and self-monitoring is needed to explore this explanation and to establish whether interventions aimed at enhancing women’s level of self-monitoring could help them overcome the barriers they face in achieving leadership positions. Because we know little about self-monitoring cross-culturally or across ethnic groups, more research on culture and self-monitoring is also warranted. Moreover, the measurement equivalence for gender or culture for self-monitoring, to the best of our knowledge, still needs to be established.

 

3.4 The Big Five

The Big Five (neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness; Hofstede & McCrae, 2004) are considered to be superordinate, universal personality traits (Marsella, Dubanoski, Hamada, & Morse, 2000). Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae (2001), using studies from several countries across several years, while finding some similarities, did find some gender and cultural differences on the Big Five. Overall, the results pertaining to gender and culture (i.e., defined by country or cultural values) do not indicate conclusive evidence for the universality of the Big Five (Marsella et al., 2000). In a meta-analysis of the relationship of the Big Five to leadership, Judge et al. (2002) found that extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness to experience had significant relationships with leadership effectiveness and emergence. Agreeableness was related to leadership effectiveness but not emergence. However, this meta-analysis did not include culture or gender as moderators.

Nonetheless, Eagly and Carli (2007), using Costa et al.’s (2001) findings, demonstrated that men and women differed on some of the facets that make up the Big Five traits. For example, women scored lower than men on the assertiveness aspect of extraversion, but they scored higher than men on the warmth and positive emotion aspects of extraversion.

 

3.5 Gender and Leadership Emergence.

Two lines of research have been conducted on gender and leadership emergence. The most prominent one looks at the sociodemographic gender of the person who is chosen as the leader. The results of a meta-analysis of studies in this area (Eagly & Karau, 1991) are consistent with Eagly and Carli’s (2007) findings regarding extraversion and showed that men and women tended to emerge as leaders in situations that were congruent with their social roles. The implication of this for women is that their leadership may be constrained to more stereotypically feminine areas. A smaller, yet very significant, line of research has demonstrated that gender-role orientation, more than sociodemographic gender, matters in terms of who emerges as a leader. For example, a meta-analysis found that along with intelligence, agentic traits such as masculinity and dominance were most characteristic of those who emerged as leaders (Lord, De Vader, & Alliger, 1986). Similarly, other research has indicated that a masculine (i.e., high instrumentality, low expressivity) gender-role orientation was most related to leadership emergence (Goktepe & Schneier, 1989). In contrast, in more recent studies, where group gender composition and the nature of the task were incorporated as variables, there is more evidence that androgyny (i.e., high instrumentality, high expressivity) is important for leader emergence. For example, one study demonstrated that in groups composed of women, those who were intelligent and androgynous were more likely to emerge as leaders (Gershenoff & Foti, 2003). But, in groups of mixed sociodemographic gender, the results are not as clear and seem to depend on the nature of the task. Overall, a trend has been observed in which androgynous individuals have the same chance as masculine individuals to be identified as leaders (Kent & Moss, 1994; Moss & Kent, 1996). These findings are encouraging for women’s leadership prospects. Androgyny may offer women a way out of the double bind they are put in when they are expected to have the instrumental qualities that are associated with leadership ability but also the expressive qualities associated with their prescribed gender role. Thus, adopting an androgynous leadership style may help women to negotiate their way through the labyrinth.

3.6 Moving Toward Incorporating Diversity Considerations into Theories of Leadership

There are many processes through which diversity can affect leadership. This multiplicity of influences is not surprising given that leadership involves many social and individual processes. As a social process, leadership comprises relationships at dyadic, group, and organizational levels. As individual cognitive and perceptual processes, leadership requires the recognition and approval of leadership in others and the acknowledgement of oneself as a leader. Given this complexity, it is not surprising that leadership theories address many different psychological and social processes, with distinctive theoretical families or schools focusing on parts of this large agenda. Because of the impressive collective reach of leadership theories, there are many possibilities for incorporating diversity issues into their explanatory frameworks. The article by Ayman and Korabik (2010) reviews several of these families of leadership theory and notes the potential for incorporating diversity into their frameworks. We add only a few observations to their discussions. Specifically, with respect to trait theories, despite the popularity of the Big Five model of personality traits in leadership research (Judge, Bono, Ilies, & Gerhardt, 2002) and evidence for its cross-cultural generalizability (McCrae & Costa, 1997), the implications of culture-specific conceptions of personality for leadership deserve attention. For example, the cross-cultural study of personality has revealed the need to modify instruments developed in the United States to represent dimensions of personality in Mexico and other nations (e.g., Dı´az-Loving, 1998; Dı´az-Guerrero, Dı´az-Loving, & Rodrı´guez de Dı´az, 2001). Similarly, researchers have identified personality dimensions specific to Chinese culture, including harmony, ren-qing(interpersonal favor), face, Ah Q mentality (defensiveness), and family orientation (Cheung et al., 2001).

4 Summary

As the paper cited indicates, the traits related to leadership are not culturally universal. Moreover, because traits have an impact on the way that men and women are perceived as leaders, gender can affect access to leadership positions. This is important because competency modeling is frequently used for the selection of managers. This approach relies heavily on  inferences about which leadership traits and skills are the most effective. These inferences are susceptible to being influenced by implicit leadership stereotypes. Moreover, these traits and skills are assumed to function similarly for people regardless of their culture and gender. However, much more empirical evidence is necessary to validate this assumption.

5 Conclusion

Over time, the image of leadership has been evolving. As early as the 1950s, Bales (1951) maintained that the socioemotional leader was the true group leader because people skills were not context dependent in the same way that task skills were. Nonetheless, a masculine leadership prototype has prevailed (Heilman, 2001; Schein, 2002). Lately, however, there has been more recognition of the importance of people skills for leaders. Scholars have associated the increased prominence of the transformational leadership and leader–member exchange paradigms in the last three decades with the feminization” of leadership (e.g., Eagly & Carli, 2003; Rudman & Glick, 2001). This perspective has led to a more androgynous conception of leadership. A move toward inclusion of more women and ethnocultural minorities in the workplace could be one factor that has precipitated this change. Globalization also has had an impact, particularly due to the influence of Asian management styles, which have been noted to be more relationship focused (Triandis, 1993). It may be that this more androgynous conception of leadership, which gives equal emphasis to task and people skills, will open up more opportunities for women and ethnocultural minorities to be considered as leaders and will assist them in negotiating their way through the barriers within the labyrinth (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Other factors that can facilitate this process include eradicating the masculine stereotypical image of a leader, eliminating the ethnocentrism that creates ingroup– outgroup biases, and equalizing access to power and privilege. Moreover, increasing the cultural awareness of leaders about different norms of conduct should enhance the level of trust in their relationships with their subordinates. An examination of the effects of gender and culture has the potential to change our definition of what constitutes leadership and what is considered to be effective leadership. This more inclusive conceptualization can expand the vision of leadership to represent all human beings