Research: How Anxiety Shapes Men’s and Women’s Leadership Differently
Originally published by Ivona Hideg, Tanja Hentschel, and Winny Shen for Harvard Business Review
One of the oldest and most persistent gender stereotypes is that women are too emotional. This stereotype hurts women’s leadership prospects as they are seen as less fit for leader roles because they are perceived to be more likely to make irrational, emotion-driven decisions than men.
In our research, we contest this lay belief that women’s leadership capacities are uniquely and easily overwhelmed by their emotions. To the contrary, we predicted that in uncertain times marked by strong emotional experiences, women may actually be less likely to act on their emotions than men when leading. This is because women are socialized to put others’ needs before their own. In uncertain times, women will likely feel compelled to make sure that others are doing well — especially others they have a responsibility for, such as their direct reports. Women may, therefore, act less strongly on their own feelings.
Research has shown that anxiety and hope are the two main emotions experienced in the face of uncertainty and are often seen as two opposite responses to a volatile environment. We examined leaders’ experiences of anxiety and hope as well as their subsequent leadership behaviors during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic — a time of high uncertainty. Critically, anxiety and hope relate to people’s perceptions of controllability in one’s environment; those experiencing anxiety perceive very little controllability, whereas those experiencing hope are more apt to believe they still have some control over their environment.
We draw on appraisal theories of emotions, which state that emotions result from how a person appraises or interprets a specific situation. One way that leaders experiencing anxiety may seek to restore some control over their environment is by wielding power over their reports, engaging in hostile, non-physical behaviors that can constitute abusive supervision. By contrast, leaders feeling hope would perceive some control and hence would be less likely to seek restoring control for themselves. Rather, they may be committed to addressing uncertainty by helping their subordinates. Specifically, we argue that leaders who felt more hope would engage in family-supportive supervision, such as seeking to help with their reports’ non-work demands, an especially salient need during the pandemic.
By integrating research on gender roles with appraisal theories of emotions, we predicted that women may be less affected by their emotions. They instead engage in emotional labor and managing their emotions, believing they cannot afford falling prey to them due to their responsibility for others. Women’s traditional gender roles dictate that they are communal and helpful. This communal focus and the need to take care of others should then be pronounced during uncertain times, so instead of a self-focus on their emotions, their behavior will be other-focused on their reports’ needs. That is, we expected that women leaders would refrain from abusive supervision and engage in family-supportive behaviors, regardless of whether they experienced anxiety or hope, respectively.