When fit is fundamental: performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers.

By K. S. Lyness, M. Heilman. Journal of Applied Psychology, 2006

638 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/704ea1ebfd0b011cc630a5300c3f903625c7ce13

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM (2013, background): “Although examples of blatant discrimination and stereotyping of women in these settings exist (Cohn 2000; Lyness and Heilman 2006), more often these environments are characterized by subtle behavioral biases.”
Gender, age and tenure as moderators of work-related stressors' relationships with job performance: A meta-analysis (2008, positive): “Recent studies support the view that sex-role stereotypes still exist in the workplace (Goldman et al., 2006) and that they are likely to be associated with men receiving more favorable performance appraisals than women (Lyness & Heilman, 2006; Watkins et al., 2006).”
The strong, sensitive type : Effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders (2008, neutral): “For example, Lyness and Heilman (2006) showed that women were rated less favorably when working in line positions as compared to staff positions.”
Scale Coarseness as a Methodological Artifact (2009, methodology): “For example, consider a study in which the observed correlation is .20, X is overall job satisfaction measured using a 5-point scale (e.g., Fuller et al., 2003) and Y is job performance measured using a 3-point scale (e.g., Lyness & Heilman, 2006).”
Combatting gender discrimination: A lack of fit framework (2018, background): “…position are likely to promote gender bias in evaluative decision making and prompt discrimination in recruitment (Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011), selection (Biernat & Fuegen, 2001), performance appraisal (Bauer & Baltes, 2002), promotion (Lyness & Heilman, 2006), and compensation (Castilla, 2008).”
A Meta-Analysis of Gender Group Differences for Measures of Job Performance in Field Studies (2012, background): “Others have suggested that gender incongruity with the perceived role of managers could lead to lower ratings for female managers (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Schein, 2001) or that females are not perceived as positively as males are in terms of promotability (Lyness & Heilman, 2006).”
Stereotype threat: Antecedents and consequences for working women (2011, background): “…women are less preferred as potential hires in traditionally masculine domains, are presented with fewer progression opportunities, and continue to earn less than their male counterparts in top executive roles (Catalyst Census, 2005; Lyness & Heilman, 2006; Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke, 1999).”
Gender Differences in Leadership Role Occupancy: The Mediating Role of Power Motivation (2014, background): “…central finding of this work is that women’s advancement is significantly hampered by external discrimination including higher performance standards (Lyness and Heilman 2006), limited access to career development measures in organizations (Hoobler et al., in press), and the promotion of women to…”