Think crisis, think female?: stakeholder reactions to CEOS following corporate violations

While much is known about the biases females face in reaching the top, less is known about how stereotypes influence expectations once they become chief executive officer (CEO). I investigate a context that relies heavily on stakeholders expectations, specifically corporate violations. I theorize how stakeholders stereotypical gender biases shape their reactions pertaining to the CEO (male vs. female), the violation type (character vs. competence), and the response (apology vs. withholding apology). I unpack if the communal stereotype serves as either a benefit (she will fix things) or a burden (she is incompetent and should be blamed for committing a violation in the first place). In a series of controlled lab experiments, participants found female CEOs uniquely equipped to lead during crisis but also punished female CEOs more if they issued a denial. These findings support the idea that descriptive gender stereotypes do reward firms for signaling a softer side through female leadership, but there is a darker side to these communal attributions as female leaders are expected to behave in a gendered manner or risk punishment. The preference for female leadership did not translate in an archival setting where financial analysts punished female leaders more than male leaders when facing lawsuits. The conflicting findings speak to the complex and important role of gender stereotypes in the formation of stakeholder perceptions.