How quota-based procedures affect the self-ascribed fit and motivation of European women and men striving for leadership positions

The consequences of quota-based hiring policies on women’s and men’s self-ascribed fit and motivation to apply for leadership positions were investigated in the European context. 389 management students (195 women, 194 men) from Switzerland, Germany, and Austria received job advertisements varying in their gender policies. Interestingly, women’s and men’s self-ascribed fit and motivation to apply did not differ when no policy was included. Instead, participant’s agency was the relevant predictor leading to higher perceived fit, resulting in higher inclination to apply. When women were either explicitly invited to apply or preferentially treated when equally qualified, they reported higher fit and inclination to apply compared to both the control condition and men. In contrast, when a quota of 40% women should be established, neither women’s fit nor motivation to apply were increased beyond the levels of the control or men’s. Men were not affected by the different policies.

Reducing women’s lack of fit with leadership? Effects of the wording of job advertisements

Linguistic forms which refer to individuals impact mental representations of these individuals: When masculine generics are used, women tend to be cognitively underrepresented, whereas feminine–masculine word pairs are associated with a higher cognitive inclusion of women. The present research investigates whether linguistic forms affect women’s perceived lack of fit with leadership positions, which is particularly pronounced for high-status leadership positions. In a hiring-simulation experiment (N = 363), we tested the effects of different linguistic forms used in German-language job advertisements: (1) masculine forms (e.g., Geschäftsführer, ‘CEO, masc.’); (2) masculine forms with (m/f) (e.g., Geschäftsführer (m/w), ‘CEO, masc. (m/f)’); and (3) word pairs (e.g., Geschäftsführerin/Geschäftsführer, ‘CEO, fem./CEO, masc.’). The job ads announced either a high- or low-status leadership position. Results showed that female applicants were perceived to fit less well with the high-status position than male applicants when either the masculine or the masculine form with (m/f) was used––even though they were perceived to be equally competent. However, female and male applicants were perceived as fitting the high-status leadership position similarly well when word pairs were used.