Still “Think Manager–Think Male”? Culture, Values, and Slow Change

Written by Yunwen (Miffy) Wang

When I ask my parents to picture a “typical” leader, their answers still read like a checklist of traditionally masculine traits: decisive, tough, and willing to take charge. Researchers call this pattern the “think manager–think male” effect (Schein et al., 1996; 2001). In plain terms, it means that when people think about managers (or leaders generally), they picture traits more commonly associated with men than women. Why does this mental image persist, especially in places where people endorse gender equality in principle? And what does it mean for who gets hired, taken seriously, and promoted at work?

One reason the pattern persists is that the traits people associate with leadership, across decades of research, are traits stereotyped as masculine (Koenig et al., 2011). As a result, leadership is perceived as incongruent with the female gender role. People not only see women as less fitting leaders but also evaluate women’s leader-like behaviors more negatively (Eagly & Karau, 2002). When women display assertive, ambitious behavior, what researchers call “agentic” traits, they can face social and hiring penalties. The reason? Their competence violates expectations that women should be warm and communal, not dominant (Rudman et al., 2012).

Evidence for this default picture appears in classic cross-cultural work. Schein et al. (1996) found that across the five countries, male students saw strong overlap between “men” and “managers” and little overlap between “women” and “managers”; Chinese men showed the strongest association between men and managers. Women’s ratings were more mixed. Female students in Japan, China, Great Britain, and Germany still saw managers as closer to men. U.S. female management students, on the other hand, no longer sex-typed the role, seeing men and women as equally likely to have managerial traits. However, this shift hasn’t held. Recent replications show the "think manager-think male" pattern persists among both U.S. men and women (Adjei Boateng & Heilman, 2024). And broader research on gender stereotypes tells a similar story: while some attitudes have evolved, core stereotypes about competence and warmth have remained surprisingly stable over decades (Haines et al., 2016). Taken together, these findings suggest that changes in social roles and opportunities may not automatically change the mental templates people use when they judge leaders.

China is a useful case for understanding why the stereotype can survive even under official equality messaging. Since the 1949 revolution, government policies in China have promoted equality of the sexes and have expected all women to participate in the workforce (Schein et al., 1996). Although women’s participation in the labor force is relatively high (about 62% in 2023), they hold only 19.7% of board seats, 6.7% of board chairs, 5% of CEOs and 15.7% of CFO positions as of 2024 (Chatterjee, 2024). At the same time, Chinese gender attitudes are more closely aligned with a patriarchal history than with modern reforms (Wang, 2024). In other words, the value says “equal,” but the daily evidence can still imply a “think manager–think male” pattern.

The GLOBE project, a massive cross-cultural study of leadership across 62 societies, helps explain why a change in values does not automatically change people’s images of leaders (Dorfman et al., 2012). Dorfman et al. (2012) measured nine cultural dimensions at two levels: practices (“as is”) and values (“should be”). For instance, gender egalitarianism reflects how much a society minimizes gender inequality. Power distance captures how much people accept large power gaps and expect followers to obey leaders; for instance, whether employees question their boss's decisions or comply without pushback. Performance orientation reflects how strongly a society encourages and rewards performance improvement and excellence: whether, say, organizations prioritize innovation and achievement or prefer stability and tradition. These cultural values predict which leadership attributes shape the “outstanding leader” prototypes. Put simply: some cultures reward participative, empowering leadership, while others reward hierarchy, procedure, and deference.

Putting Schein and GLOBE together helps clarify why the “think manager–think male” effect can persist even when gender equality is endorsed in principle. In China, there is a value-practice gap: equality is promoted as an ideal, yet women remain underrepresented in management, and women who do lead can be labeled “iron women”, implying they've sacrificed femininity for authority. GLOBE’s distinction between cultural values (“should be”) and practices (“as is”) helps explain why this gap matters: policy statements alone don't change prototypes, and prototypes are likely reinforced by what people repeatedly observe in organizational life (Dorfman et al., 2012). When workplaces emphasize high performance and accept large power gaps, people more readily associate leadership with strong authority, status protection, and obedience (Dorfman et al., 2012). This can make it harder for women to be seen as a “natural fit” for leadership, especially given evidence that women face harsher penalties for explicit dominance (Williams & Tiedens, 2016).

If “think manager–think male” persists because values (“should be”) diverge from workplace practices (“as is”), then changing the stereotype requires changing what organizations routinely reward, not just what they claim to believe (Dorfman et al., 2012; Schein et al., 1996). Leader prototypes shift when people repeatedly see women exercising authority, being evaluated as effective, and being promoted into the high-status roles their culture views as “real leadership.”

In practice, organizations can make leadership criteria explicit and evidence-based, use structured hiring and promotion processes, and track who receives stretch assignments and sponsorship. In higher power-distance settings, they can redesign meeting norms (rotate who speaks first, explicitly invite dissent) so authority is not equated with unquestioned obedience (Dorfman et al., 2012). Individuals can also shape these “as is” practices: managers can interrupt vague backlash feedback (“too aggressive”) by asking for concrete evidence and alternatives, and teammates can sponsor women into visible roles, publicly credit their ideas, and back their authority in meetings, especially since women face stronger penalties for explicit dominance (Williams & Tiedens, 2016).

Yunwen (Miffy) Wang

Miffy is a junior at Hamilton College majoring in Psychology

References

Adjei Boateng, F., & Heilman, M. E. (2024). Think manager-think male re-examined: Race as a moderator. Sex Roles, 90(12), 1717-1734. 10.1007/s11199-024-01542-6

Chatterjee, S. (2024, October 23). 2024 Women in Leadership Forum [Speech]. United Nations in China.

Dorfman, P., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., Dastmalchian, A., & House, R. (2012). GLOBE: A twenty year journey into the intriguing world of culture and leadership. Journal of World Business, 47(4), 504–518. 10.1016/j.jwb.2012.01.004

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573

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. 10.1177/0361684316634081

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(4), 616–642. 10.1037/a0023557

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. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.008

Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. (1996). Think manager—think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33–41. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199601)17:1<33::AID-JOB778>3.0.CO;2-F

Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management. Journal of Social issues, 57(4), 675-688.

Wang, Q., Chiang, T. F., & Xiao, J. J. (2024). Attitude toward gender inequality in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-14.

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. 10.1037/bul0000039