ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Questioning ‘Feminine Managerial Behavior’ – A European Study Considering Gender Ideology

Clotilde Coron^*

Professeure des Universités (Université Paris-Saclay, RITM), Sceaux, France

 

 

Abstract

Gender equality is one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, and gender equality in the workplace and access to managerial positions are an important dimension of this field. The assumption of the existence of ‘feminine management’, i.e., of female managers exhibiting different managerial behaviors from male managers, is both widespread and controversial (Peterson, 2015; Stewart & Wiener, 2021). Previous research has shown that women tend to adopt transformational and supportive leadership more often than men (Eagly et al., 2003; Peterson, 2015; Ye et al., 2016). This result supports the argument that, as managers, women bring unique contributions to organizational performance through their supportive managerial behavior, which leads to higher team efficiency (Hoobler et al., 2018). Gender role theory has been widely used to explain this gender difference: due to gender norms and socialization, women are encouraged to engage in more supportive and caring behaviors, and, therefore, to adopt a more supportive management style (Eagly et al., 2003). However, the idea that women managers are more supportive than men also fuels an essentialist discourse that naturalizes the differences between women and men (Pigeyre & Vernazobres, 2013).

Most of the studies dealing with managerial support do not measure it concretely, but only assess managerial support as it is perceived by subordinates. Yet, perceived managerial support can differ from concrete managerial support, according to the supervisor’s sex¹. Indeed, as gender role theory has shown, perceptions of ‘feminine management’ could be based on differences in social expectations of women and men (Pigeyre & Vernazobres, 2013; Saint-Michel & Wielhorski, 2011), with the same behavior eliciting different perceptions based on whether a woman or a man performs it. More precisely, women and men are not similarly evaluated: for example, employees perceived female managers who self-described as communal to be more transformational than male managers (Saint-Michel, 2018). In addition, the subordinate’s sex can also influence perceived managerial support. Particularly, it has been shown that supervisors and subordinates in same-sex dyads report better managerial relationships, with a more common understanding of their roles and expectations (Bender et al., 2017; Ghaus et al., 2018). Hence, sex (dis)similarity between supervisor and subordinate can shape perceived managerial support.

While gender role theory, in contrast to the essentialist discourse, highlights the importance of gender stereotypes in shaping perceived and actual individual behaviors, research on gender differences in managerial support has not paid much attention to national cultures and, in particular, to gender ideologies. Gender ideologies refer to perceptions of the appropriate behaviors for women and men (Dolan et al., 2011; Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007). Gender socialization during childhood shapes these perceptions (Grunow et al., 2018). They vary across countries and can influence sex differences in managerial behavior, as well as the expectations that employees can have of their managers. This, in turn, can impact the perceived managerial support depending on the supervisor’s sex (Beblo & Görges, 2018; Ye et al., 2016). Finally, depending on the subordinate’s sex, these perceptions can also shape subordinates’ expectations of their supervisor (Ghaus et al., 2018).

Overall, the existing literature on perceived managerial support has not simultaneously taken national gender ideology, supervisor’s sex, subordinate’s sex, and sex (dis)similarity into account. This study attempts to fill this gap by investigating the extent to which perceived managerial support is simultaneously shaped by the supervisor’s sex, the subordinate’s sex, sex (dis)similarity between subordinate and supervisor, and the extent to which national gender ideology plays a role in this relationship. To do so, this article uses a unique combination of two data sources. It relies mainly on the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) database, which offers the opportunity to study a representative sample of employees (representative at both the national and the European level and allowing comparisons between countries). This paper also aggregates data from the European Values Study (EVS) database to measure gender stereotypes among employees at the national level. Overall, this study is based on a representative sample of 22,391 employees from 26 European countries. The results reveal that, on average, perceived managerial support is higher when supervisors are women, regardless of the subordinate’s sex and the sex (dis)similarity between subordinate and supervisor. However, this difference between male and female supervisors disappears when the moderating role of national gender ideology is controlled for.

This study provides several insights and makes various contributions to the debate on gender and perceived managerial support, heeding Ye et al.’s (2016) call to simultaneously take national cultures, the supervisor’s sex, and the subordinate’s sex into account when studying perceived managerial support. The article’s main contribution is to show that gender differences in perceived managerial support stem primarily from persistent gender stereotypes. This insight jeopardizes the essentialist discourse, which presumes that women are intrinsically different to men, with different skills and abilities. By doing so, this article contributes to the nature/nurture debate related to sex differences in professional behaviors and choices. This study is also important regarding the managerial issues. This article shows that, instead of assuming that female managers behave differently from their male counterparts, organizations should pay attention to gender stereotypes, which can influence how female and male subordinates perceive female and male supervisors’ managerial support.

This article is structured as follows. The first section is devoted to a literature review of the debate on ‘feminine management’ and managerial support. The second section presents the data used and the methodology, and the third section presents the results obtained. Finally, the fourth section discusses the results.

Literature review

The relationship between sex and perceived managerial support: A rich and inconsistent literature

Previous studies have debated the existence of sex differences in managerial behaviors (Stewart & Wiener, 2021), inviting scholars to take this debate further. Some authors use the gender role theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) to suggest that gendered socialization, as well as gender stereotypes and social expectations of women and men (Essig & Soparnot, 2019), is the reason for feminine and masculine management styles, with feminine management styles focusing more on managerial support than the men’s (Saint-Michel, 2018). A meta-analysis indicated that female leaders exhibit more supportive and transformational leadership (focused on subordinates’ development) than male leaders, who tend to display transactional leadership (focused on subordinates’ performance) (Eagly et al., 2003; Maher, 1997). This study focuses on managerial support, which refers to how managers ‘provide organizational support through their managerial role by caring for subordinates’ well-being and providing work advisory (Sawang, 2010, p. 248). Previous studies suggest that female managers engage in more supportive managerial behaviors (Peterson, 2015; Ye et al., 2016).

However, several scholars have criticized this idea of feminine management behavior being distinct from and more supportive than men’s (Due Billing & Alvesson, 2000; Pigeyre & Vernazobres, 2013). Particularly, this idea is the basis of an essentialist discourse, challenged by critical gender studies, in which the differences between women and men are naturalized in that all women are assumed to have different managerial styles from men, and that these differences are supposedly innate (Hoobler et al., 2018). Consequently, some academic work has highlighted the limitations of the research that shows differences in managerial support between women and men. First, the magnitude of the sex differentials has been questioned, with some scholars arguing that the similarities in management style between women and men outweigh the differences between them (Wajcman, 1996). Relatedly, previous studies have revealed that noncompliance with management ideals can result in negative evaluations, leading women to strive for compliance with the same management ideals as men (Due Billing & Alvesson, 2000; Wajcman, 1996). Second, studies about female and male managers might be subject to selection bias. In a situation where access to managerial positions is more difficult for women than for men, women who become managers might be chosen because they comply with gender stereotypes or other types of expectations (Eagly et al., 2003). Third, and most importantly, most studies dealing with sex and management measure perceived (either self-perceived or perceived by employees) managerial behaviors instead of concrete managerial behaviors. Yet, an employee’s perception of their manager’s support might be influenced by the manager’s sex (Saint-Michel, 2018; Saint-Michel & Wielhorski, 2011).

Particularly, sex (dis)similarity between supervisor and subordinate can influence perceived managerial support (Douglas, 2012). For example, supervisors and subordinates in same-sex dyads reportedly have better working relationships – a result which can be explained by the greater ease of working with similar people (Vecchio & Brazil, 2007), or by the fact that supervisors and subordinates in same-sex dyads may have a greater shared understanding of role expectations than otherwise (Ghaus et al., 2018). Incidentally, having a supervisor of the same sex is associated with fewer discrimination claims (Bender et al., 2017); also, sex (dis)similarity between subordinate and supervisor moderates the effect of the managerial relationship quality on voice behavior (Wijaya, 2019).

Overall, both supervisors’ and subordinates’ sex, and sex (dis)similarity between subordinates and supervisors, must be considered when we study perceived managerial support. This limitation applies to a study that Ye et al. (2016) conducted on cross-national and gender differences in managerial support, which did not take the subordinate’s sex into account.

The moderating role of gender ideology

While gender role theory underlines the importance of gender stereotypes in shaping perceived and concrete individual behaviors, research on gender differences in managerial support has not paid much attention to national gender ideologies. Yet, the relationship between the supervisor’s and the subordinate’s sex and perceived managerial support can be shaped by beliefs about and expectations of the adequate roles and behaviors of women and men, which will be referred to as gender ideology: ‘gender norms influence individuals’ beliefs regarding the appropriate behavior for men and women in the context of work and family’ (Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007, p. 343). Gaunt and Benjamin (2007) as well as Davis and Greenstein (2009) use the term ‘gender ideology’. Other papers use terms like gender roles, gender orientation, gender stereotypes, or gender differences (Bagger et al., 2008; Bueno Merino & Duchemin, 2022; Dolan et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2019). All these terms relate to beliefs and representations about acceptable behaviors for women and men, which are internalized during the socialization process. More precisely, gender ideology is generally operationalized as a unidimensional construct that ranges from traditional to egalitarian (Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007). Traditional gender ideology refers to a world vision in which men should be the breadwinners and women are responsible for the household and childcare (Bagger & Li, 2012). Egalitarian gender ideology corresponds to a universe in which women and men have the same roles and responsibilities in the personal and professional spheres (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007). Overall, gender ideology can influence perceptions of the behaviors observed, depending on whether they are performed by a woman or a man. In addition, gender ideology varies according to sex, with men generally reporting a less egalitarian gender ideology than women do (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Grunow et al., 2018).

Gender ideology is deeply connected to national cultures (Alesina et al., 2013; Fernández, 2007; Fernández & Fogli, 2009; Fogli & Veldkamp, 2011). For example, Beblo and Görges (2018) show the differences between East and West Germany in the 1980s concerning the expectations of women and men regarding paid and unpaid work. Sweet et al. (2016) emphasize differences between China and Japan concerning women’s and men’s career centrality. In a comparative national approach, Fortin (2005) studies the gender ideology differences across different countries, and the influence national gender ideologies have on women’s labor market outcomes. Other studies have highlighted national differences in the prevalence of gender stereotypes (Sweet et al., 2016).

Overall, national cultures vary in gender ideology, ranging on a continuum from egalitarian to traditional. These differences can shape both the sex differences in managerial behaviors and the expectations and perceptions that employees have concerning their managers, depending on the manager’s sex. Therefore, gender ideology might play a moderating role in the relationship among the supervisor’s sex, the subordinate’s sex, and perceived managerial support. Furthermore, if sex differences are due to gender stereotypes, they should disappear if the moderating role of gender ideology is controlled for.

This article delves into these relationships. Previous research has examined separately, without reaching consensus, the roles of the subordinate’s sex, the supervisor’s sex, sex (dis)similarity between subordinate and supervisor, and gender ideology. This study aims to integrate these different variables in the same analysis, to get a deeper understanding of this complex phenomenon. More precisely, this study investigates the extent to which perceived managerial support is shaped simultaneously by the supervisor’s sex, the subordinate’s sex, sex (dis)similarity between the different parties, and the extent to which national gender ideology plays a role in this relationship (and moreover, what happens to the relationship between sex and perceived managerial support if the moderating role of gender ideology is controlled for). A standard hypothetico-deductive approach would require precisely defining the effect of each variable, which, in this case, is impossible because previous research has not reached consensus on these effects. That is why this study uses an exploratory approach rather than a hypothetico-deductive one.

The following section explains the concrete steps and characteristics of the research design, thereby also clarifying this approach.

Data and methodology

Data

The main individual data used in this study are drawn from the 2015 EWCS (European Working Conditions Survey). This survey provides insight into working conditions throughout 35 European countries (28 EU member states, as well as Norway, Switzerland, Albania, North Macedonia², Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey). The sample is a multistage stratified random sample of the working population in each country. It was restricted to employees who answered the question, ‘Is your immediate boss a man or a woman?’ The EWCS dataset is a stratified weighted sample, i.e., it is provided with individual weights which allow researchers to produce representative results at the national and international levels. The sample accounts for underrepresented categories by assigning higher weights to correspond to the target population in each country (all individuals aged 15 or more living in private households and employed). In the following analyses, weights (provided with the dataset) were used to produce representative results (both nationally and for national comparison).

To measure gender ideology at the national (and not at the individual) level, data from the 2017 EVS were used to complement the EWCS data with those national measures. The preceding wave, a World Values Survey, which took place between 2010 and 2014, covered only a limited number of countries. We assume that national gender ideologies remained stable between 2015 (EWCS) and 2017 (EVS). The EVS survey is a representative, large-scale, and cross-national survey on human values. It contains individual declarative data on gender stereotypes, and weights are provided with the data to extrapolate the results at the country level. Owing to differences in perimeter and country coding, the initial EWCS sample had to be restricted to the 26 countries that appear in both samples; therefore, Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the UK, and Turkey were eliminated. The final sample has data of 22,391 employees (11,889 female and 10,502 male). Table 1 gives the unweighted distribution of respondents across the different countries.

Table 1. Sample

Country	Number of respondents
Albania	452
Austria	788
Bulgaria	793
Croatia	727
Czech Republic	741
Denmark	833
Estonia	803
Finland	738
France	1,188
Germany	1,545
Hungary	732
Italy	718
Lithuania	774
Montenegro	606
Netherlands	738
North Macedonia	647
Norway	881
Poland	759
Portugal	592
Romania	718
Serbia	573
Slovakia	764
Slovenia	1,232
Spain	2,378
Sweden	865
Switzerland	806

Measures

Perceived managerial support. Seven items from the EWCS can be used to measure perceived managerial support. Respondents were asked to rate seven statements regarding their applicability to their manager’s behavior, e.g., ‘Your immediate boss helps and supports you’ (see Table A1 in the Appendix for the full list of items). Each item was measured on a Likert scale, in which respondents indicate their degree of agreement (‘Strongly disagree’/‘Tend to disagree’/‘Neither agree nor disagree’/‘Tend to agree’/‘Strongly agree’). The Cronbach’s alpha for the seven items is 0.89. An index corresponding to the aggregation (average) of the seven items was computed. Items were reversed so that a high score would indicate high perceived managerial support, as in previous research that uses the same items (Ariza-Montes et al., 2018; Artz et al., 2020).

Subordinate’s sex, supervisor’s sex, and sex (dis)similarity. The interviewers reported each subordinate’s sex (contrary to the other variables that correspond to the interviewees’ answers). It is coded as ‘woman’, ‘man’, or ‘Don’t know’. However, only nine individuals in the whole sample correspond to ‘Don’t know’. Therefore, only the answers ‘woman’ and ‘man’ were kept. This is a binary variable, which does not consider the possibility of a nonbinary vision of humans. Although this binarity is regrettable, it is necessary, as this study focuses on the possible differences between women and men. The supervisor’s sex is determined by the question: ‘Is your immediate boss a man or a woman?’ Again, only the answers ‘man’/‘woman’ were kept. The subordinate’s sex, the supervisor’s sex, and their sex (dis)similarity were integrated into only one variable, called ‘Dyad’, which corresponds to the combination of the subordinate’s and the supervisor’s sex. Four categories were created: the woman – woman dyad, the man – man dyad, the woman – man dyad, and the man – woman dyad. Such a strategy was used previously in research on sex differences in managerial behavior (Stewart & Wiener, 2021).

National gender ideology. First, the individual’s gender ideology in the EVS sample was measured by averaging responses to seven statements about traditional gender roles and behaviors, e.g., ‘When a mother works for pay, the children suffer’ (see Table A2 in the Appendix for the full list of items). Each item was measured on a Likert scale, with respondents having to indicate their degree of agreement (‘Agree strongly’/‘Agree’/‘Disagree’/‘Disagree strongly’). The Cronbach’s alpha for the seven questions is 0.88. A high score, therefore, represents an egalitarian ideology, while a low score corresponds to a traditional one. Although the unidimensionality of gender ideology has been debated (Grunow et al., 2018), those items have been used as a proxy for gender ideology (Davis & Greenstein, 2009; Fortin, 2005). Second, national gender ideology was computed as the average of the gender ideology of the country’s employees (restricted to employees and based on weighted data for representativeness). This was added to the EWCS database.

Control variables. Several variables supposed to affect perceived managerial support were used in this study. Previous research has shown that temporary employment can influence employees’ experience and, specifically, their satisfaction at work (De Cuyper et al., 2019), as well as their psychological contract and behavior (Chambel & Castanheira, 2006). In the EWCS data, the type of contract is an unordered categorical variable classified into four categories: unlimited duration, limited duration, temporary employment agency contract, and no contract. Part-time work has also been linked to job expectations and satisfaction (Booth & Ours, 2008). Working time reported in the EWCS data can be either full-time or part-time. Education level, which can influence work expectations and, thus, expectations of management and perceived managerial support (Ganzach, 2003; Tlaiss & Mendelson, 2014), is an unordered categorical variable recorded using the ISCED classification: primary education, lower secondary education, upper secondary education, postsecondary non-tertiary education, short-cycle tertiary education, bachelor or equivalent, master, or doctorate. Age has been shown to influence employees’ expectations and experience at work (Broadbridge et al., 2007). The EWCS survey records age in years. Previous research also used tenure (Saint-Michel, 2018), which the EWCS data express in years. Phenomena of employees being overskilled or underskilled can also affect their expectations of their work and relationships (McGuinness & Wooden, 2009). The EWCS survey recorded skills in three categories, as an unordered categorical variable: ‘I need further training to cope well with my duties’, ‘My present skills correspond well with my duties’, and ‘I have the skills to cope with more demanding duties’. Two additional company-related control variables were also included. The sector is an unordered categorical variable with four modalities: private, public, joint private – public, and other. The workforce is an unordered categorical variable referring to the number of employees within the organization (1, 2–9, 10–249, 250+, and don’t know).

Table 2 contains univariate descriptive statistics of the variables used in this study for the whole sample, and for women and men samples.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics

Characteristics	Whole sample N = 22,391	Women sample N = 11,889	Men sample N = 10,502
Employee’s sex/Supervisor’s sex
Woman – Woman Woman – Man Man – Woman Man – Man	25.99% 23.88% 7.19% 42.94%	52.12% 47.88% 0% 0%	0% 0% 14.35% 85.65%
Perceived manager’s behavior	m (mean) = 3.92, sd (standard deviation) = 0.87	m = 3.94, sd = 0.85	m = 3.89, sd = 0.88
Type of contract
Unlimited duration Limited duration Temp. empl. agency No contract	81.41% 13.60% 1.26% 3.73%	81.67% 13.89% 1.14% 3.31%	81.16% 13.32% 1.38% 4.15%
Time
Full-time Part-time	84.51% 15.49%	76.99% 23.01%	91.93% 8.07%
Education
Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Postsec. non-tertiary Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor Master or doctorate	2.52% 9.29% 46.21% 8.50% 8.05% 14.10% 11.33%	2.30% 8.10% 42.50% 8.78% 9.49% 16.76% 12.06%	2.74% 10.48% 49.90% 8.21% 6.61% 11.46% 10.59%
Age	m = 41.56, sd = 11.90	m = 41.63, sd = 11.35	m = 41.50, sd = 12.50
Tenure	m = 9.72, sd = 9.65	m = 9.57, sd = 9.23	m = 9.88, sd = 10.11
Skills
Underskilled Adequate Overskilled	14.40% 57.99% 27.61%	14.70% 59.08% 26.22%	14.10% 56.91% 28.99%
Sector
Private sector Public sector Joint PP Not-for-profit Other	65.50% 28.54% 3.77% 1.09% 1.10%	58.67% 34.88% 3.76% 1.47% 1.22%	72.30% 22.24% 3.78% 0.70% 0.98%
Workforce
1 2–9 10–249 250+ Don’t know	0.98% 18.89% 44.33% 31.90% 3.91%	1.32% 20.11% 44.26% 30.25% 4.06%	0.65% 17.67% 44.39% 33.53% 3.76%

Methodology

This study uses an exploratory approach, in the sense that it is not based on a precise hypothesis drawn from previous literature. Indeed, the lack of academic literature on perceived managerial support, which simultaneously studies the supervisor’s sex, the subordinate’s sex, sex (dis)similarity, and gender ideology, does not allow the formulation of a specific hypothesis, particularly not about the precise moderating effect of gender ideology.

First, this research started with descriptive statistics on the different variables of interest (perceived managerial behavior and sex dyad) in a comparative national logic. National gender ideology was then added to the analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to measure the variations in gender ideology across countries, which prompted us to investigate the moderating role gender ideology plays in the relationship among the supervisor’s sex, the subordinate’s sex, their sex (dis)similarity, and perceived managerial support more deeply. To this end, hierarchical linear modeling, i.e., multilevel modeling, was used. Multilevel modeling is useful in studying phenomena that are explained both by the individual and at a more general level (organization or, in this case, country) (Renkema et al., 2016; Smyth & Steinmetz, 2008). Multilevel models give unbiased estimates for nested data and help determine the percentage of variation explained by the different levels (Goldstein et al., 2002). In this study, two levels are considered: individual and national. SAS software and the mixed procedure were used for the analysis.

Results

National differences concerning perceived managerial support

First, the data were used to produce statistics concerning perceived managerial support across the different countries for the whole sample. A GLM (generalized linear model) showed that the differences between countries were significant (Denmark as the reference group). Table 3 reports the results.

Table 3. Perceived managerial support across the countries

Country	Whole sample
	m	Sd
Albania	3.98	0.70
Austria	3.91	0.91
Bulgaria	4.16	0.80***
Croatia	3.83	0.89**
Czech Republic	3.96	0.79
Denmark	3.91	0.88 (ref.)
Estonia	3.72	0.78***
Finland	3.96	0.90
France	3.75	0.96***
Germany	3.74	0.84***
Hungary	4.00	0.87**
Italy	3.67	0.70***
Lithuania	3.89	0.75
Montenegro	3.69	0.89***
Netherlands	3.91	0.90
North Macedonia	4.29	0.80***
Norway	4.20	0.79***
Poland	3.79	0.84***
Portugal	4.13	0.77***
Romania	4.14	0.73***
Serbia	3.69	0.97***
Slovakia	3.76	0.74***
Slovenia	3.99	0.97**
Spain	4.03	0.93***
Sweden	3.78	0.80***
Switzerland	3.97	0.77
The stars indicate the significance of the difference in perceived managerial support between countries, with Denmark as the reference group.
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01

Table 3 shows huge differences between countries related to perceived managerial support. The countries with the lowest reported average levels of perceived managerial support are, in ascending order, Italy, Montenegro, Serbia, Estonia, Germany, France, and Slovakia (indicated in bold in Table 3). The countries with the highest reported average levels of perceived managerial support are, in descending order, North Macedonia, Norway, Bulgaria, Romania, Portugal, Spain, and Hungary (indicated in italics in Table 3).

The relationship between sex (dis)similarity and perceived managerial support

Besides the national differences, this study focuses on the effects of the subordinate’s and the supervisor’s sex in relation to perceived managerial support. To measure these effects, GLM (generalized linear models) models were used to check the significant differences in perceived managerial behavior according to the subordinate’s sex (Table A3 in the Appendix) and the supervisor’s sex (Table A4 in the Appendix).

Nine countries exhibit significant differences between subordinate women and men concerning their perception of their manager’s support (indicated in bold type in Table A3). In all these countries, women consistently report higher managerial support from their managers than men do.

In some countries, there are also differences in perceived managerial support according to the supervisor’s sex. In nine countries (indicated in bold in Table A4), employees with a female supervisor report higher perceived managerial support. In other countries, the difference is not statistically significant. In none of the countries did employees with a female supervisor report lower perceived managerial support than employees with a male supervisor. This finding tends to support the idea that female managers are more supportive than male managers.

In addition, statistics concerning perceived managerial support across the different countries for each of the dyads (subordinate’s sex – supervisor’s sex) were produced to determine whether perceived managerial support varies according to the sex similarity or dissimilarity between subordinate and supervisor. In each country, GLM models were used to check the significance of the difference according to the dyads (Table A5 in the Appendix).

There are significant differences between the dyads in 12 countries (indicated in bold type in Table A5). The differences vary across the countries. For example, in Austria, Croatia, Germany, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Serbia, and Spain, female subordinates with a female supervisor report a higher level of perceived managerial support than all the other dyads. In Albania, female subordinates with male supervisors report the highest level of perceived managerial support from such men, followed by male subordinates with female supervisors. In Switzerland, male subordinates with female supervisors report the highest level of perceived managerial support from such women, followed by female subordinates with male supervisors, female subordinates with female supervisors, and male subordinates with male supervisors.

To summarize, the descriptive statistics provide initial insights. First, there are significant cross-country differences in perceived managerial support. Second, in some countries, there are also differences between female and male subordinates, and in others between subordinates who have a female supervisor and those with a male supervisor. In countries where there are differences, female subordinates consistently report a higher level of perceived managerial support, as do subordinates with a female supervisor. This finding prompted a further analysis that considered the sex (dis)similarity between the subordinate and the supervisor, which showed that the relationship is somewhat more complex than what was expected, with some countries where female subordinates with a female supervisor report higher levels of perceived managerial support than all the other dyads, and others where this is the case for male subordinates with a female supervisor. This finding highlights the importance of considering the dyad (subordinate’s sex –supervisor’s sex) and not only the supervisor’s sex as in previous research.

The moderating role of gender ideology

It is worth considering whether this sex difference in perceived managerial support can be shaped (at least, in part) by gender ideology, and what happens when the moderating role of gender ideology is controlled for. As underlined in the literature review, gender ideology often differs across countries. Besides, gender ideology can influence both sex differences in managerial support and sex differences in perceived managerial support – sex differences referring to both the subordinate’s sex and the supervisor’s sex. First, Table 4 gives the average gender ideology for each country: a higher score indicates a more egalitarian gender ideology; the score is given at the country level, not at the individual level.

Table 4. Gender ideology across countries

Country	Average gender ideology
Albania	2.79
Austria	3.14
Bulgaria	2.62
Croatia	2.99
Czech Republic	2.69
Denmark	3.48
Estonia	2.90
Finland	3.33
France	3.44
Germany	3.19
Hungary	2.80
Italy	2.87
Lithuania	2.55
Montenegro	2.70
Netherlands	3.22
North Macedonia	2.77
Norway	3.61
Poland	2.80
Portugal	3.03
Romania	2.76
Serbia	2.83
Slovakia	2.64
Slovenia	2.98
Spain	3.45
Sweden	3.57
Switzerland	3.12

The countries with the most egalitarian gender ideology are Sweden, Denmark, Spain, France, and Finland (indicated in bold in Table 4). The countries with the most traditional gender ideology are Lithuania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Montenegro (indicated in italics in Table 4).

A correlation matrix shows no correlation between gender ideology and perceived managerial support (Table 5).

Table 5. Correlation matrix

Variables	n	M	SD	1	2	3	4
1. Perceived MS	22,391	3.92	0.87	–
2. Gender ideology	22,391	3.07	0.32	0.01	–
3. Age	22,391	41.56	11.90	−0.04***	0.02***	–
4. Tenure	22,391	9.72	9.65	−0.01	0.02***	0.57***	–
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

However, a quick analysis indicates that countries with significant differences between the dyads have a higher average gender ideology (i.e., a more egalitarian gender ideology on average) than those without significant differences (average gender ideology in countries with significant differences: 3.19; average gender ideology in countries with no significant differences: 2.94).

Thus, we assume the national and sex differences are partly shaped by national gender ideology. Specifically, we propose this ideology leads to differences in perceived managerial support between female and male supervisors, as well as for female and male subordinates. This would explain both the national differences and why, when there are significant differences, they all go in the same direction, indicating that perceived managerial support is higher for female supervisors.

To check this proposition, hierarchical linear models with and without interaction effects are used. The dependent variable for both models is perceived managerial support. Model 1 includes only individual variables and does not include gender ideology or interaction effects. Model 2 includes individual variables and gender ideology (i.e., a country-level variable). Model 3 includes individual variables, gender ideology, and interaction effects between gender ideology and the supervisor’s/subordinate’s sex dyad. The results are reported in Table 6. To simplify the presentation of the results, the effects of control variables are not reported in Table 6 (see Table A6 in the Appendix for the full detailed results with the effects of control variables). ICC(1), ICC(2), and rwg were computed and justify aggregation, as indicated in Table 6. The rwg index, which measures the within-group agreement to justify aggregating individual-level data, is around 0.65 and shows moderate agreement (close to strong agreement, at a 0.71 threshold) (Woehr et al., 2015). The ICC(1) of 0.04 indicates 4% of the variation in perceived managerial support can be attributed to the country-level (Biemann et al., 2012). It is below the suggested 0.1 cutoff, but this is frequent in cross-national comparisons (Autio et al., 2013). Furthermore, Bliese et al. (2018) show that when the data are nested, as is the case here, multilevel modeling is appropriate even when ICC(1) values are small and nonsignificant. The ICC(2), which provides an estimate of the reliability of the country-level means (Bliese, 1998; Shieh, 2016; Woehr et al., 2015), is around 0.52. This is slightly lower than the suggested 0.7; however, this cutoff has been criticized, and another proposal is that an ICC(2) between 0.4 and 0.7 indicates good reliability (Lance et al., 2006; Shieh, 2016). The pseudo-R2 was also computed and is low. However, this study pays attention to the effect some variables have on perceived managerial support and does not aim to predict or find all the determinants of perceived managerial support. In this case, a low R2 does not preclude a model from being informative (Rights & Sterba, 2019). To check the robustness of the results, nonhierarchical models were also estimated and give the same overall results for the effect of the dyad subordinate’s sex and supervisor’s sex, with and without interaction effects with national gender ideology.

Table 6. Results of the models

	Model 1 Estimate (SE)	Model 2 Estimate (SE)	Model 3 Estimate (SE)
Individual level variable
Employee’s sex/Supervisor’s sex (ref. Man – Man)
Woman – Woman Woman – Man Man – Woman	0.06 (0.01)*** -0.00 (0.01) 0.06 (0.02)***	0.06 (0.01)*** -0.00 (0.01) 0.06 (0.02)***	-0.10 (0.14) 0.05 (0.14) -0.14 (0.22)
Country level variable
Gender ideology	–	0.02 (0.11)	0.01 (0.11)
Cross-level interactions
GI x dyad
GI * WW GI * WM GI * MW	–		0.05 (0.04) -0.02 (0.05) 0.07 (0.07)
-2*Log Likelihood	56,388	56,391	56,400
AIC	56,392	56,395	56,404
rwg	0.65	0.65	0.65
Variation explained by country level (ICC1)	0.04	0.04	0.04
ICC2	0.52	0.53	0.52
Pseudo-R2	0.02	0.02	0.02
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 6 shows that even when controlling for type of contract, working time, education, age, tenure, skills, sector, and workforce, the effect of sex (dis)similarity on perceived managerial support remains significant. Perceived managerial support is higher in dyads where the manager is a woman, i.e., in Woman – Woman and Man – Woman dyads. The effects are the same when controlling for gender ideology (Model 2). However, Model 3 shows that when controlling for gender ideology as a moderator of the relationship between the dyad and perceived managerial support, the effect of the subordinate’s sex and the supervisor’s sex becomes insignificant.

Discussion and conclusion

This study contributes to the debate on sex differences in perceived managerial support by simultaneously considering the subordinate’s and the supervisor’s sex, their sex (dis)similarity, and national gender ideology. Indeed, most previous research has focused on the relationship between the supervisor’s sex and perceived managerial support, without looking at the role played by national gender ideology. Besides, only a few studies pay attention to the effect of the subordinate’s sex. A research question was formulated based on the literature review and the theoretical framework of gender ideology or gender norms, asking to what extent perceived managerial support is simultaneously shaped by the supervisor’s sex, the subordinate’s sex, sex (dis)similarity between subordinate and supervisor, and to what extent national gender ideology plays a role in this relationship. The results show that, on average, perceived managerial support is higher if supervisors are women, regardless of the subordinate’s sex and, thus, of sex (dis)similarity between the subordinate and the supervisor. In addition, the difference between female and male supervisors disappears when controlling for the moderating role of national gender ideology.

Theoretical contributions

This study finds that female managers are perceived as being more supportive than their male counterparts. This finding aligns with prior studies that found women exhibit more supportive and more coaching managerial behaviors than men (Eagly et al., 2003; Ye et al., 2016). In a context where companies increasingly value transformational leadership based on managerial support (Hoobler et al., 2018; Saint-Michel, 2018), this finding argues for greater inclusion of women in managerial positions. Previous research has explained these gender differences by gender role theory, which suggests that managerial behaviors are influenced by gender roles (Saint-Michel & Wielhorski, 2011; Ye et al., 2016): ‘to the extent that gender roles exert some influence on leaders, female and male occupants of the same leadership role would behave somewhat differently’ (Eagly et al., 2003, p. 572). In particular, there exist a lot of injunctions for women to display more supportive and service-oriented behaviors than men (Saint-Michel, 2018). However, gender role theory not only emphasizes that individual behaviors are constrained by gender norms but also highlights how perceived individual behaviors are constrained by gender norms. For example, behaviors that correspond to masculine stereotypes (e.g., authority and ambition) are evaluated less favorably in women because with such behavior, women deviate from the gender norms (Eagly & Karau, 2002). That is why this study emphasizes perceived managerial behavior. The data used here relate to how subordinates perceive their supervisors’ behaviors and show that female managers are perceived as more supportive than their male counterparts.

While gender role theory underlines the importance of gender stereotypes in shaping perceived and concrete individual behaviors, research on gender differences in managerial support has not paid much attention to the role national gender ideologies play. Gender ideology refers to beliefs and representations regarding acceptable behaviors for women and men, which are internalized during the socialization process. Gender ideology, as a set of beliefs, can be measured at the individual level, but by aggregating individual beliefs, it is also possible to produce a national index, as in other research on values and cultures (Hofstede, 2011; Leung & Morris, 2015). This study has focused on the role national gender ideology plays in the relationship between sex and perceived managerial support, based on the fact that gender ideology shapes individual behaviors and expectations (Gaunt & Benjamin, 2007). In fact, the results show that, although gender ideology does not directly affect perceived managerial support, the effect of the dyad subordinate’s sex – supervisor’s sex becomes nonsignificant when gender ideology is introduced as a moderator. The fact that the difference between the dyads disappears when we control for the moderating role of gender ideology indicates that it is mostly national gender ideology that creates differences in perceived managerial support between female and male supervisors and for female and male subordinates. This result brings a new insight to the debate related to the existence of a specific feminine management style. Indeed, it jeopardizes the essentialist discourses, which presume that women are essentially different from men, with different skills and abilities (Ellingsæter, 2013; Grunow et al., 2018). It shows that female managers are not intrinsically different from male managers, but their behavior can be perceived as different due to beliefs about gender. With this insight, this study brings an additional argument to the nature/nurture debate related to sex differences in professional behaviors and choices (Beblo & Görges, 2018; Eagly & Wood, 2017). Overall, this study underlines the importance of considering and measuring gender ideology at the national level in cross-cultural research on gender issues.

Previous research has shown that subordinates and supervisors in same-sex dyads have better working relationships (Ghaus et al., 2018; Vecchio & Brazil, 2007). This result has been explained by the ‘similarity-attraction paradigm’ (or the homophily paradigm), namely, by the principle that an increase in demographic similarity leads to an improvement in interpersonal attraction and relations. However, this study’s results suggest that this paradigm does not hold. More precisely, the supervisor’s sex plays a more important role than the sex similarity between subordinate and supervisor. For example, Models 1 and 2 show that perceived managerial support is higher among subordinates with female managers, whatever the subordinates’ sex. Descriptive statistics are useful to explain this result. Indeed, they show that the effect of sex (dis)similarity is not the same in every country. In most countries where the dyad has an effect, female subordinates with a female supervisor report a higher level of perceived managerial support than all the other dyads, but in other countries (e.g., Switzerland), male subordinates with female supervisors report the highest level of perceived managerial support. These national differences, compared to the fact that female managers are perceived as more supportive than male managers in every country where the effect is significant, suggest that the similarity-attraction paradigm is less adequate than the gender role theory in explaining variations in perceived managerial support according to gender.

Methodological contributions

This study is based on the unique combination of two databases (EWCS and EVS). Its measurement of gender ideology, because of the representative and large-scale EWS sample, allows for generalizing the aggregate at the country level, unlike other data sources on national cultures, like researcher-administered surveys (Saint-Michel, 2018; Ye et al., 2016). Notably, it shows that the usual comparative data sources used in cross-cultural research, such as Hofstede’s project (Hofstede, 2011), are not sufficient in investigating gender issues, as they do not contain information about perceptions and norms related to gender. Particularly, gender ideology does not correspond at all with Hofstede’s ‘masculinity’ dimension, which is supposed to measure the differences between men’s and women’s values. Lithuania, which has a very traditional gender ideology according to the EVS survey, has a low masculinity score, i.e., close to Sweden’s, which, according to the survey, has a very egalitarian gender ideology. This result highlights the absence of data on concrete gender norms in Hofstede’s dimensions, a point previously raised by feminist scholars regarding cross-national typologies (Orloff, 1993) yet not in management cross-cultural research.

The cross-country differences also underline the relevance of a multilevel approach, which incorporates both country-level and individual-level variables, in management research related to gender and perceptions. As Figureau et al. (2020) underlined, multilevel data collection is required in management research on behavioral and cognitive issues.

Another key methodological issue relates to the approach this study uses, which deviates from the typical quantitative research in management. This study employs an exploratory approach since the complexity of the topic, the relationships between the variables, the conflicting results from previous studies on the existence of a specific feminine managerial style, and the limited research on the impact of national gender ideology made it difficult to formulate specific hypotheses (Min et al., 2022; Witt et al., 2022). Therefore, instead of a precise hypothesis, a general research question was formulated based on the literature review and the theoretical framework of gender ideology or gender norms, asking whether national gender ideology plays a role in the relationship between the subordinate’s and the supervisor’s sex and perceived managerial support. For this reason, the approach used here has been described as exploratory, rather than hypothetico-deductive. Adopting an exploratory approach in quantitative research helps avoid the pitfalls of hypothetico-deductive research, such as defining hypotheses after the results are known (HARKing) (Murphy & Aguinis, 2019) and being locked in a binary position of (in)validating hypotheses without being able to describe concrete situations and formulate new theoretical proposals (Locke, 2007; Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010). This exploratory approach also heeds some scholars’ call for more variety in research design in management research (Alvesson & Gabriel, 2013; Greasley & Thomas, 2020; Harley, 2015). Additionally, it is all the more important that new paradigms are seen to emerge in management research due to ‘big data’, namely, data-driven science (Kitchin, 2014). Several scholars in management research have underlined the advent of this new paradigm: ‘For the most part, OMS (organizational and management scholarship) largely confines its interests to preconceived hypotheses […]. However, Big Data can contain analytical value that exceeds any a priori conception […]. Phenomenon-driven, exploratory approaches may not precisely explain why something is happening, but they can identify (ir)regularities or shed light on boundary conditions, thereby generating novel questions’ (Wenzel & Van Quaquebeke, 2018, p. 555). Data-driven science seems closed to exploratory approaches like the one used here, where data are used to enrich existing knowledge without hypothesizing a priori what the results will be.

Practical implications

Although gender equality is one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, women still lag behind men in access to leadership positions. This study can help companies try to close this gap. Indeed, it challenges the ‘think manager – think male’ paradigm (Peterson, 2015) and the notion of a specific ‘feminine managerial behavior’. It shows that when controlling for the moderating role of gender ideology, there is no (subordinate’s and supervisor’s) sex difference in perceived managerial support. Hence, the article shows that, instead of assuming that female managers behave differently from men, organizations should pay attention to gender stereotypes among their employees and managers, which can influence how female and male subordinates perceive managerial support from female and male supervisors. This is especially true for multinational corporations, which face different national gender ideologies. This paper shows that average perceived managerial support and national gender ideology vary drastically across countries. Companies should try to reduce gender stereotypes among their employees. This could imply training and sensitization workshops focused on unconscious biases and stereotypes, dedicated to both women and men (Madsen & Andrade, 2018). Besides, this study suggests that, due to gender ideology, subordinates do not evaluate their female and male managers in the same way. Therefore, companies should also limit the effects of gender stereotypes on individual evaluations or be cautious when using individual evaluations.

Limitations

Unlike most quantitative studies, this study does not suffer from common-method bias because two different data sources were used. In addition, the representative sample allows the results to be extrapolated to the countries included in the survey. However, this study presents some limitations that offer new research areas. The main limitation relates to the scale used to measure gender ideology. It is a unidimensional scale, as in most previous research, but in recent years, some scholars who advocate a multidimensional approach have questioned this unidimensionality (Grunow et al., 2018). The second limitation refers to the low value of ICC(1) and pseudo-R2. Although academic research has shown that multilevel modeling is adequate for nested data even if ICC(1) is low, it means that the country level does not play a very important role in perceived managerial support. Similarly, although the low pseudo-R2 does not preclude the model from providing information about the relationships between the variables, it does indicate that the models do not predict perceived managerial support very well. One explanation for this low value could be that several factors can influence perceived managerial behavior, such as those related to the work environment. Future research using microlevel and qualitative data could provide deeper insight into the organizational and managerial environment.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the reviewers and the editor for taking the time and effort to review this manuscript. I sincerely appreciate their valuable comments and suggestions, which helped me to improve the quality of the manuscript.

References

Alesina, A., Giuliano, P. & Nunn, N. (2013). On the origins of gender roles: Women and the plough. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(2), 469–530. doi: 10.1093/qje/qjt005

Alvesson, M. & Gabriel, Y. (2013). Beyond formulaic research: In praise of greater diversity in organizational research and publications. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(2), 245–263. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0327

Ariza-Montes, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., Han, H. & Law, R. (2018). Work environment and well-being of different occupational groups in hospitality: Job demand – Control – Support model. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 73, 1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.01.010

Artz, B., Goodall, A. H. & Oswald, A. J. (2020). How common are bad bosses? Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 59(1), 3–39. doi: 10.1111/irel.12247

Autio, E., Pathak, S. & Wennberg, K. (2013). Consequences of cultural practices for entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(4), 334–362. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2013.15

Bagger, J. & Li, A. (2012). Being important matters: The impact of work and family centralities on the family-to-work conflict – Satisfaction relationship. Human Relations, 65(4), 473–500. doi: 10.1177/0018726711430557

Bagger, J., Li, A. & Gutek, B. A. (2008). How much do you value your family and does it matter? The joint effects of family identity salience, family-interference-with-work, and gender. Human Relations, 61(2), 187–211. doi: 10.1177/0018726707087784

Beblo, M., & Görges, L. (2018). On the nature of nurture. The malleability of gender differences in work preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 151, 19–41. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.05.002

Bender, K. A., Heywood, J. S. & Kidd, M. P. (2017). Claims of employment discrimination and worker voice. Industrial Relations Journal, 48(2), 133–153. doi: 10.1111/irj.12172

Biemann, T., Cole, M. S., & Voelpel, S. (2012). Within-group agreement: On the use (and misuse) of rWG and rWG(J) in leadership research and some best practice guidelines. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 66–80. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.006

Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation. Organizational Research Methods, 1(4), 355–373. doi: 10.1177/109442819814001

Bliese, P. D., Maltarich, M. A., & Hendricks, J. L. (2018). Back to basics with mixed-effects models: Nine take-away points. Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), 1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9491-z

Booth, A. L., & Ours, J. C. V. (2008). Job satisfaction and family happiness: The part-time work puzzle. The Economic Journal, 118(526), 77–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02117.x

Broadbridge, A. M., Maxwell, G. A. & Ogden, S. M. (2007). Experiences, perceptions and expectations of retail employment for Generation Y. Career Development International, 12(6), 523–544. doi: 10.1108/13620430710822001

Bueno Merino, P. & Duchemin, M.-H. (2022). Contribution of psychological entrepreneurial support to the strengthening of female entrepreneurial intention in a women-only incubator. M@n@gement, 25(4), 64–79. doi: 10.37725/mgmt.v25.4556

Chambel, M. J. & Castanheira, F. (2006). Different temporary work status, different behaviors in organization. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(3), 351–367. doi: 10.1007/s10869-005-9015-0

Davis, S. N. & Greenstein, T. N. (2009). Gender ideology: Components, predictors, and consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 35, 87–105. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115920

De Cuyper, N., Piccoli, B., Fontinha, R. & De Witte, H. (2019). Job insecurity, employability and satisfaction among temporary and permanent employees in post-crisis Europe. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 40(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1177/0143831X18804655

Dolan, S. L., Bejarano, A. & Tzafrir, S. (2011). Exploring the moderating effect of gender in the relationship between individuals’ aspirations and career success among engineers in Peru. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(15), 3146–3167. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2011.560883

Douglas, C. (2012). The moderating role of leader and follower sex in dyads on the leadership behavior – Leader effectiveness relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 163–175. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.013

Due Billing, Y. & Alvesson, M. (2000). Questioning the notion of feminine leadership: A critical perspective on the gender labelling of leadership. Gender, Work & Organization, 7(3), 144–157. doi: 10.1111/1468-0432.00103

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C. & van Engen, M. L. (2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569

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

Eagly, A. H. & Wood, W. (2017). Gender identity: Nature and nurture working together. Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture, 1(1), 59–62. doi: 10.26613/esic/1.1.10

Ellingsæter, A. L. (2013). Scandinavian welfare states and gender (de) segregation: Recent trends and processes. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(3), 501–518. doi: 10.1177/0143831X13491616

Essig, E. & Soparnot, R. (2019). Re-thinking gender inequality in the workplace – A framework from the male perspective. M@n@gement, 22(3), 373–410. doi: 10.3917/mana.223.0373

Fernández, R. (2007). Cultural change as learning: The evolution of female labor force participation over a century. American Economic Review, 103(1), 472–500. doi: 10.3386/w13373

Fernández, R. & Fogli, A. (2009). Culture: An empirical investigation of beliefs, work, and fertility. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 1(1), 146–177. doi: 10.1257/mac.1.1.146

Figureau, A.-G., Hamelin, A. & Pfiffelmann, M. (2020). Experimentally validated surveys: Potential for studying cognitive and behavioral issues in management. M@n@gement, 23(4), 1–12. doi: 10.37725/mgmt.v23i4.5613

Fogli, A. & Veldkamp, L. (2011). Nature or nurture? Learning and the geography of female labor force participation. Econometrica, 79(4), 1103–1138. doi: 10.3982/ECTA7767

Fortin, N. M. (2005). Gender role attitudes and the labour-market outcomes of women across OECD countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 21(3), 416–438. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/gri024

Ganzach, Y. (2003). Intelligence, education, and facets of job satisfaction. Work and Occupations, 30(1), 97–122. doi: 10.1177/0730888402239328

Gaunt, R. & Benjamin, O. (2007). Job insecurity, stress and gender: The moderating role of gender ideology. Community, Work & Family, 10(3), 341–355. doi: 10.1080/13668800701456336

Ghaus, B., Lodhi, I. & Shakir, M. (2018). Much of a muchness? The role of gender similarity in a relationship between LMX and OCB. Global Social Sciences Review, III(IV), 284–308. doi: 10.31703/gssr.2018(III-IV).19

Goldstein, H., Browne, W. & Rasbash, J. (2002). Partitioning variation in multilevel models. Understanding Statistics: Statistical Issues in Psychology, Education, and the Social Sciences, 1(4), 223–231. doi: 10.1207/S15328031US0104_02

Greasley, K. & Thomas, P. (2020). HR analytics: The onto-epistemology and politics of metricised HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 30(4), 494–507. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12283

Grunow, D., Begall, K. & Buchler, S. (2018). Gender ideologies in Europe: A multidimensional framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(1), 42–60. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12453

Harley, B. (2015). The one best way? ‘Scientific’ research on HRM and the threat to critical scholarship. Human Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 399–407. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12082

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–26. doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1014

Hoobler, J. M., Masterson, C. R., Nkomo, S. M. & Michel, E. J. (2018). The business case for women leaders: Meta-analysis, research critique, and path forward. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2473–2499. doi: 10.1177/0149206316628643

Ketokivi, M. & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315–333. doi: 10.5465/amr.2010.48463336

Kitchin, R. (2014). Big data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts. Big Data & Society, 1(1), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2053951714528481

Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M. & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220. doi: 10.1177/1094428105284919

Leung, K. & Morris, M. W. (2015). Values, schemas, and norms in the culture-behavior nexus: A situated dynamics framework. Journal of International Business Studies, 46(9), 1028–1050. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2014.66

Locke, E. A. (2007). The case for inductive theory building. Journal of Management, 33(6), 867–890. doi: 10.1177/0149206307307636

Madsen, S. R. & Andrade, M. S. (2018). Unconscious gender bias: Implications for women’s leadership development. Journal of Leadership Studies, 12(1), 62–67. doi: 10.1002/jls.21566

Maher, K. J. (1997). Gender-related stereotypes of transformational and transactional leadership. Sex Roles, 37(3–4), 209–225. doi: 10.1023/A:1025647811219

McGuinness, S. & Wooden, M. (2009). Overskilling, job insecurity, and career mobility. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(2), 265–286. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-232X.2009.00557.x

Min, J., Johnson, M. D., Anderson, J. R. & Yurkiw, J. (2022). Support exchanges between adult children and their parents across life transitions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 84(2), 367–392. doi: 10.1111/jomf.12787

Murphy, K. R. & Aguinis, H. (2019). HARKing: How badly can cherry-picking and question trolling produce bias in published results? Journal of Business and Psychology, 34(1), 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10869-017-9524-7

Orloff, A. S. (1993). Gender and the social rights of citizenship: The comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review, 58(3), 303–328. doi: 10.2307/2095903

Peterson, H. (2015). Exit the king. Enter the maid: Changing discourses on gendered management ideals in Swedish Higher Education. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 30(5), 343–357. doi: 10.1108/GM-09-2013-0113

Pigeyre, F. & Vernazobres, P. (2013). Le « management au féminin »: Entre stéréotypes et ambigüités. Management international, 17(4), 194–209. doi: 10.7202/1020677ar

Renkema, M., Meijerink, J. & Bondarouk, T. (2016). Advancing multilevel thinking and methods in HRM research. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 3(2), 204–218. doi: 10.1108/JOEPP-03-2016-0027

Rights, J. D. & Sterba, S. K. (2019). Quantifying explained variance in multilevel models: An integrative framework for defining R-squared measures. Psychological Methods, 24(3), 309–338. doi: 10.1037/met0000184

Saint-Michel, S. (2018). Leader gender stereotypes and transformational leadership: Does leader sex make the difference? M@n@gement, 21(3), 944–966. doi: 10.3917/mana.213.0944

Saint-Michel, S. & Wielhorski, N. (2011). Style de leadership, LMX et engagement organisationnel des salariés: Le genre du leader a-t-il un impact? @GRH, 1(1), 13–38. doi: 10.3917/grh.111.0013

Sawang, S. (2010). Moderation or mediation? An examination of the role perceived managerial support has on job satisfaction and psychological strain. Current Psychology, 29(3), 247–256. doi: 10.1007/s12144-010-9083-9

Shieh, G. (2016). Choosing the best index for the average score intraclass correlation coefficient. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 994–1003. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0623-y

Smyth, E. & Steinmetz, S. (2008). Field of study and gender segregation in European labour markets. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49(4–5), 257–281. doi: 10.1177/0020715208093077

Stewart, J. L. & Wiener, K. K. K. (2021). Does supervisor gender moderate the mediation of job embeddedness between LMX and job satisfaction? Gender in Management: An International Journal, 36(4), 536–552. doi: 10.1108/GM-07-2019-0137

Sweet, S., Sarkisian, N., Matz-Costa, C. & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2016). Are women less career centric than men? Structure, culture, and identity investments. Community, Work & Family, 19(4), 481–500. doi: 10.1080/13668803.2015.1078287

Tlaiss, H. A. & Mendelson, M. B. (2014). Predicting women’s job satisfaction with personal demographics: Evidence from a Middle Eastern country. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(3), 434–458. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2013.792859

Vecchio, R. P. & Brazil, D. M. (2007). Leadership and sex-similarity: A comparison in a military setting. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 303–335. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00075.x

Wajcman, J. (1996). Desperately seeking differences: Is management style gendered? British Journal of Industrial Relations, 34(3), 333–349. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8543.1996.tb00478.x

Wenzel, R. & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2018). The double-edged sword of big data in organizational and management research: A review of opportunities and risks. Organizational Research Methods, 21(3), 548–591. doi: 10.1177/1094428117718627

Wijaya, N. H. S. (2019). Proactive personality, LMX, and voice behavior: Employee – Supervisor sex (dis)similarity as a moderator. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(1), 86–100. doi: 10.1177/0893318918804890

Witt, M. A., Fainshmidt, S. & Aguilera, R. V. (2022). Our board, our rules: Nonconformity to global corporate governance norms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(1), 131–166. doi: 10.1177/00018392211022726

Woehr, D. J., Loignon, A. C., Schmidt, P. B., Loughry, M. L. & Ohland, M. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs: A review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 704–737. doi: 10.1177/1094428115582090

Ye, R. M., Wang, X.-H. F., Wendt, J. H., Wu, J. & Euwema, M. C. (2016). Gender and managerial coaching across cultures: Female managers are coaching more. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(16), 1791–1812. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1075570

Zhao, K., Zhang, M. & Foley, S. (2019). Testing two mechanisms linking work-to-family conflict to individual consequences: Do gender and gender role orientation make a difference? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(6), 988–1009. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2017.1282534

Appendix

Table A1. Items used to measure perceived managerial support

Item	Type of question
‘Your immediate boss helps and supports you.’	Likert scale, with respondents having to indicate their degree of agreement: 1 = ‘Strongly agree’ 2 = ‘Tend to agree’ 3 = ‘Neither agree nor disagree’ 4 = ‘Tend to disagree’ 5 = ‘Strongly disagree’
‘Your immediate boss respects you as a person.’
‘Your immediate boss gives you praise and recognition when you do a good job.’
‘Your immediate boss is successful in getting people to work together.’
‘Your immediate boss is helpful in getting the job done.’
‘Your immediate boss provides useful feedback on your work.’
‘Your immediate boss encourages and supports your development.’

 

Table A2. Items used to measure national gender ideology

Item	Type of question
‘When a mother works for pay, the children suffer.’	Likert scale, with respondents having to indicate their degree of agreement: 1 = ‘Agree strongly’ 2 = ‘Agree’ 3 = ‘Disagree’ 4 = ‘Disagree strongly’
‘A job is alright, but what most women truly want is a home and children.’
‘All in all, family life suffers when the woman has a full-time job.’
‘A man’s job is to earn money, a woman’s job is to look after the home and family.’
‘On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do.’
‘A university education is more important for a boy than for a girl.’
‘On the whole, men make better business executives than women do.’

Tables A3, A4, and A5 report the average perceived managerial support and, in parentheses, the standard deviation.

Table A3. Perceived managerial support according to the subordinate’s sex

Country	Women		Men
	m	sd	m	sd
Albania	4.03	0.64*	3.91	0.76
Austria	3.96	0.91	3.86	0.90
Bulgaria	4.18	0.73	4.15	0.88
Croatia	3.88	0.86	3.78	0.92
Czech Republic	3.96	0.79	3.96	0.79
Denmark	3.89	0.90	3.93	0.87
Estonia	3.77	0.73*	3.67	0.86
Finland	3.93	0.90	3.99	0.90
France	3.71	0.96	3.78	0.96
Germany	3.79	0.81**	3.70	0.86
Hungary	4.03	0.87	3.97	0.88
Italy	3.66	0.71	3.68	0.70
Lithuania	3.90	0.71	3.87	0.80
Montenegro	3.69	0.91	3.68	0.86
Netherlands	3.98	0.60**	3.84	0.89
North Macedonia	4.35	0.74*	4.23	0.85
Norway	4.22	0.78	4.18	0.81
Poland	3.82	0.84	3.75	0.85
Portugal	4.18	0.69*	4.07	0.87
Romania	4.13	0.76	4.15	0.71
Serbia	3.78	0.99**	3.60	0.94
Slovakia	3.77	0.70	3.75	0.81
Slovenia	3.99	0.93	3.98	1.02
Spain	4.08	0.92**	3.98	0.93
Sweden	3.78	0.81	3.79	0.79
Switzerland	4.05	0.74***	3.90	0.79
The stars indicate the significance of the difference between supervisors’ perceived managerial support among female employees compared to their male counterparts in each country (GLM models), with men being the reference group.
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

 

Table A4. Perceived managerial support according to the supervisor’s sex

Country	Women		Men
	m	sd	m	sd
Albania	4.04	0.61	3.96	0.73
Austria	3.98	0.94	3.88	0.89
Bulgaria	4.23	0.68	4.13	0.85
Croatia	3.91	0.85	3.79	0.90
Czech Republic	4.03	0.77*	3.93	0.80
Denmark	3.94	0.89	3.89	0.88
Estonia	3.73	0.78	3.72	0.79
Finland	4.02	0.89	3.91	0.91
France	3.79	0.94	3.73	0.97
Germany	3.84	0.76***	3.71	0.86
Hungary	4.00	0.97	4.01	0.83
Italy	3.67	0.77	3.67	0.67
Lithuania	3.88	0.72	3.90	0.77
Montenegro	3.69	0.89	3.68	0.88
Netherlands	4.12	0.80***	3.82	0.92
North Macedonia	4.34	0.79	4.26	0.81
Norway	4.25	0.79	4.17	0.79
Poland	2.13	0.80*	2.25	0.87
Portugal	3.87	0.72	3.75	0.79
Romania	4.13	0.76	4.14	0.72
Serbia	3.86	0.85***	3.61	1.01
Slovakia	3.84	0.69**	3.71	0.77
Slovenia	4.05	0.92	3.96	1.00
Spain	4.10	0.92***	3.99	0.93
Sweden	3.87	0.76***	3.72	0.83
Switzerland	4.08	0.70**	3.93	0.79
The stars indicate the significance of the difference between women supervisors’ perceived managerial support compared to their male counterparts in each country (GLM models), with men being the reference group.
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

 

Table A5. Perceived managerial support according to the dyads

Country	Woman – Woman		Woman – Man		Man – Woman		Man – Man
	m	sd	m	sd	m	sd	m	Sd
Albania	4.01	0.62	4.05	0.67**	4.20	0.58*	3.88	0.77
Austria	4.00	0.93*	3.92	0.90	3.86	0.99	3.86	0.89
Bulgaria	4.22	0.68	4.14	0.79	4.25	0.71	4.13	0.90
Croatia	3.92	0.86*	3.83	0.87	3.85	0.85	3.77	0.92
Czech Republic	4.03	0.77	3.88	0.81	4.03	0.74	3.95	0.79
Denmark	3.91	0.91	3.87	0.89	4.02	0.83	3.90	0.88
Estonia	3.75	0.75	3.80	0.71*	3.66	0.99	3.67	0.83
Finland	3.95	0.91	3.87	0.89	4.34	0.66***	3.93	0.92
France	3.76	0.94	3.66	0.98	3.85	0.96	3.77	0.96
Germany	3.85	0.76***	3.74	0.85	3.81	0.76	3.69	0.87
Hungary	4.02	0.94	4.05	0.79	3.87	1.10	3.99	0.85
Italy	3.63	0.77	3.68	0.66	3.76	0.77	3.66	0.68
Lithuania	3.87	0.68	3.97	0.75	3.91	0.94	3.87	0.78
Montenegro	3.66	0.91	3.71	0.92	3.77	0.85	3.67	0.86
Netherlands	4.17	0.80***	3.82	0.95	3.94	0.79	3.82	0.90
North Macedonia	4.40	0.75*	4.30	0.74	4.05	0.96	4.25	0.84
Norway	4.29	0.76	4.12	0.80	4.14	0.89	4.19	0.79
Poland	3.85	0.81	3.77	0.87	3.98	0.69	3.73	0.86
Portugal	4.20	0.67	4.16	0.71	4.01	0.98	4.08	0.85
Romania	4.16	0.74	4.09	0.78	4.01	0.86	4.17	0.69
Serbia	3.90	0.80***	3.66	1.13	3.70	1.02	3.58	0.91
Slovakia	3.84	0.65	3.68	0.74	3.83	0.96	3.74	0.79
Slovenia	4.04	0.91	3.93	0.96	4.05	0.93	3.97	1.03
Spain	4.12	0.90***	4.04	0.94	4.05	0.99	3.97	0.92
Sweden	3.85	0.76	3.66	0.88	3.91	0.76*	3.75	0.81
Switzerland	4.03	0.70**	4.06	0.78***	4.31	0.63***	3.86	0.79
The stars indicate the significance of the difference between the dyads in each country (GLM models), the dyad Man-Man being the reference group.
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

 

Table A6. Full results of the models

	Model 1 Estimate (SE)	Model 2 Estimate (SE)	Model 3 Estimate (SE)
Individual level variable
Employee’s sex/Supervisor’s sex (ref. Man – Man)
Woman – Woman Woman – Man Man – Woman	0.06 (0.01)*** -0.00 (0.01) 0.06 (0.02)***	0.06 (0.01)*** -0.00 (0.01) 0.06 (0.02)***	-0.10 (0.14) 0.05 (0.14) -0.14 (0.22)
Country level variable
Gender ideology	-	0.02 (0.11)	0.01 (0.11)
Cross-level interactions GI x dyad
GI * WW GI * WM GI * MW	-		0.05 (0.04) -0.02 (0.05) 0.07 (0.07)
Individual control variables
Type of contract (ref. Unlimited duration)
Limited duration Temp. empl. agency No contract	-0.08 (0.02)*** -0.25 (0.06)*** -0.08 (0.04)**	-0.08 (0.02)*** -0.25 (0.06)*** -0.08 (0.04)**	-0.08 (0.02)*** -0.25 (0.06)*** -0.08 (0.04)**
Time (ref. Full-time)
Part-time	0.02 (0.02)	0.02 (0.02)	0.02 (0.02)
Education (ref. Upper secondary)
Primary Lower secondary Postsec. non-tertiary Short-cycle tertiary Bachelor Master’s or Doctorate	-0.06 (0.04)* -0.10 (0.02)*** 0.00 (0.02) 0.10 (0.02)*** 0.11 (0.02)*** 0.15 (0.02)***	-0.06 (0.04)* -0.10 (0.02)*** 0.01 (0.02) 0.10 (0.02)*** 0.11 (0.02)*** 0.15 (0.02)***	-0.06 (0.04) -0.10 (0.02)*** 0.01 (0.02) 0.10 (0.02)*** 0.11 (0.02)*** 0.15 (0.02)***
Age	-0.00 (0.00)***	-0.00 (0.00)***	-0.00 (0.00)***
Tenure	0.00 (0.00)***	0.00 (0.00)***	0.00 (0.00)***
Skills (ref. Adequate)
Underskilled Overskilled	0.06 (0.02)*** -0.05 (0.01)***	0.06 (0.02)*** -0.05 (0.01)***	0.06 (0.02)*** -0.05 (0.01)***
Sector (ref. Private sector)
Public sector Joint PP Not-for-profit Other	0.03 (0.01)** 0.03 (0.03) 0.01 (0.06) 0.07 (0.06)	0.03 (0.01)** 0.03 (0.03) 0.01 (0.06) 0.07 (0.06)	0.03 (0.03)** 0.03 (0.03) 0.01 (0.06) 0.07 (0.07)
Workforce (ref. 10–249)
1 2–9 250+ Don’t know	0.25 (0.06)*** 0.20 (0.02)*** -0.03 (0.01)** -0.06 (0.03)**	0.25 (0.06)*** 0.20 (0.02)*** -0.03 (0.01)** -0.06 (0.03)**	0.25 (0.06)*** 0.20 (0.02)*** -0.03 (0.01)** -0.06 (0.03)*
-2*Log Likelihood	56,388	56,391	56,400
AIC	56,392	56,395	56,404
rwg	0.65	0.65	0.65
Variation explained by country level (ICC1)	0.04	0.04	0.04
ICC2	0.52	0.53	0.52
Pseudo-R2	0.02	0.02	0.02
Significance levels: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Footnotes

^1. Throughout the article, the word ‘sex’ will be used to refer to the statistical variable indicating whether someone identifies as a woman or a man. The term ‘gender’ will be used mostly when referring to ‘gender role theory,’ which relates to the roles and behaviors expected from a woman and a man.

^2. FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) in the survey. The data is from 2017, before the country changed its name to North Macedonia in 2019.