Content uploaded by Tanja Hentschel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tanja Hentschel on Nov 14, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sounds like a fit! Wording in recruitment advertisements and
recruiter gender affect women's pursuit of career development
programs via anticipated belongingness
Tanja Hentschel
1
| Susanne Braun
2
| Claudia Peus
3
| Dieter Frey
4
1
Amsterdam Business School, University of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
2
Durham University Business School, Durham
University, Durham, UK
3
TUM School of Management, Technical
University of Munich, Munich, Germany
4
Ludwig Maximilian University Munich,
Munich, Germany
Correspondence
Tanja Hentschel, Amsterdam Business School,
University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15953,
1001 NL Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Email: t.hentschel@uva.nl
Funding information
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
(German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research, BMBF) and European Social Fund
(ESF), Grant/Award Number: FKZ01FP1070/71
Abstract
Following calls for research to increase gender equality, we investigated women's
intentions to pursue career opportunities, in the form of career development pro-
grams. We built on lack of fit and signaling theory to argue that women's but not
men's pursuit of career opportunities would be influenced by recruiter gender and
gender-stereotypical wording in recruitment advertisements. We conducted two
studies in Germany. In Study 1 (video-based experiment with 329 university stu-
dents), we found that when a male recruiter used stereotypically masculine compared
to feminine wording, female students anticipated lower belongingness, expected
lower success of an application, and indicated lower application intentions for career
opportunities. These differences in female students’evaluations disappeared when
the recruiter was female. While Study 2 (experimental vignette study with
545 employees) replicates the negative effects of masculine wording for female
employees; the buffering effect of female recruiters was only replicated for younger,
but not for older female employees. Women's anticipated belongingness mediated
the relationship between advertisement wording and application intentions when the
recruiter was male. Recruiter gender and wording had no effects on men. Our work
contributes to a better understanding of when and why contextual characteristics in
the recruitment process influence women's pursuit of career opportunities.
KEYWORDS
advertisement, age, application, belongingness, career development, gender, recruiter,
recruitment, stereotypes, wording
1|INTRODUCTION
The lack of women in leadership is a major issue for organizations
worldwide (Davidson & Burke, 2016), with a vast amount of ethical
(Mayer & Cava, 1993), business
1
(Cook & Glass, 2011), talent based
(Dychtwald, Erickson, & Morison, 2013), and reputational arguments
(Bear, Rahman, & Post, 2010) for its relevance. Both researchers and
headhunters struggle with the challenge of effective recruitment for
enhancing diversity (Ployhart, 2006). Organizations invest consider-
able resources to recruit women (Thaler-Carter, 2001), yet women's
career advancement remains uneven in comparison to men's. Even
well-intended interventions do not always work out, or have inverse
consequences (Caleo & Heilman, 2019; Dobbin, Schrage, & Kalev,
2015; Leslie, 2019). Besides the external biases that women face
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.22043
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2020 The Authors. Human Resource Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Hum Resour Manage. 2020;1–22. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrm 1
(Eagly & Karau, 2002), it is also due to self-stereotyping processes
(Hentschel, Heilman, & Peus, 2019) that women are less likely to pur-
sue career opportunities, thereby limiting their career advancement
(Heilman, 1983; Powell & Butterfield, 2003).
Facilitating women's participation in career opportunities is one
way to enhance diversity in leadership (Brue & Brue, 2016; Ely, Ibarra, &
Kolb, 2011; Madsen & Andrade, 2018). Career development programs
2
pave the way for future university graduates and employees to become
leaders (Kraimer, Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2011). Entering
career development programs can provide women both with better
qualifications for leadership positions and greater agency in their ongo-
ing careers (e.g., network building; Linehan, 2001). We argue that one
reason why women are hesitant to apply is that there is a perceived
lack of fit between career development programs and women's per-
sonal characteristics (e.g., due to stereotype threat; Hoyt & Murphy,
2016). This is problematic because failing to enter career development
programs may curb aspirations as well as later career chances and suc-
cess (Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; van Dijk, Kooij, Karanika-
Murray, De Vos, & Meyer, 2020).
3
Lack of fit theory (Heilman, 1983) suggests that when women
compare their personal characteristics with the stereotypically mascu-
line characteristics of career opportunities, the mismatch reduces their
interest in pursuing such opportunities. Signaling theory (Connelly,
Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011) suggests that virtually anything
potential applicants observe during the recruitment process can serve
as an indication of the characteristics required for the career opportu-
nity. Integrating these two theories, we suggest that depending on
which gender-stereotypical signals organizations send, women's per-
ceptions of career opportunities will differ, subsequently influencing
their application intentions. Two highly prevalent signals during the
recruitment process are the wording in advertisements and the
recruiters themselves. We argue that gender stereotypical wording
and recruiter gender will serve as signals in the recruitment process—
enhancing or limiting women's pursuit of career opportunities.
Past research has shown that gendered pronouns, position titles,
pictures, and applicant requirements in recruitment advertisements
can influence women's attraction to organizations and their interest in
positions or career opportunities (Avery & McKay, 2006; Bem & Bem,
1973; Bosak & Sczesny, 2008; Hentschel, Horvath, Peus, & Sczesny,
2018; Horvath, 2015; Stout & Dasgupta, 2011; Taris & Bok, 1998).
We also know that stereotypically masculine wording in advertise-
ments can limit women's interest in certain types of occupations
(e.g., plumber; Gaucher, Friesen, & Kay, 2011). We do not know, how-
ever, whether these negative effects translate to the context of career
development. Deciding whether or not to apply for a career develop-
ment program is different from making an occupational choice. Indi-
viduals have to invest time and resources over and above their day to
day responsibilities when they seek to develop themselves. While job
decisions are focused on the present, career development activities
require a future orientation as they have potential career benefits
mostly in the long run. In addition, while research on job applications
addresses the societal challenge of horizontal gender segregation
(concentration of men and women in different types of jobs), research
on career development programs addresses the societal challenge of
vertical gender segregation (fewer women in higher organizational
positions). Finally, career opportunities are relevant signposts in
women's careers and can alleviate potential fears that they are not
suitable for leadership (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016).
An important question in the context of advertising career
development opportunities is whether the effects of gendered
wording can be exacerbated (or attenuated) by recruiter characteris-
tics. Because potential applicants are not confronted with only one
distinct signal, we need to understand how different recruitment sig-
nals interact with one another to shape evaluations and application
intentions. We argue that the gender of the recruiter is a salient cue
in the recruitment process, which will affect the impact of advertise-
ment wording on women's evaluations of career opportunities.
However, previous research findings on recruiter gender in the con-
text of job applications are inconsistent, with some studies showing
that female recruiters help (Liden & Parsons, 1986) and other stud-
ies showing that they harm (Taylor & Bergmann, 1987) women's
interests. In sum, we challenge the view that women make different
career choices or plans than men do (Hite & McDonald, 2003) or are
less motivated to lead (Elprana, Stiehl, Gatzka, & Felfe, 2012; Nauta,
Epperson, & Kahn, 1998; Powell & Butterfield, 2003; Schuh et al.,
2013). Instead, we argue that it is the very means by which organi-
zations seek to recruit them (i.e., the advertisements and recruiters
for career opportunities) that can hold women back from participat-
ing in career development programs, and thus progressing in their
careers.
This research makes the following contributions. First, following
calls for research on diversity recruitment in easy-to-implement and
ethical ways (Ployhart, 2006; Walker & Hinojosa, 2013), we investi-
gate the specific influence of signals organizations use during the
recruitment process—namely, advertisement wording and recruiter
gender—on application intentions of women. Second, we expand the
theoretical lens of the human resource (HR) management literature by
linking HR research on recruitment and recruiters (Breaugh, 2012,
2013; Cable & Judge, 1996; Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991; Taylor &
Bergmann, 1987) with social-psychological research on gender stereo-
types in wording (Bem & Bem, 1973; Gaucher et al., 2011; Stout &
Dasgupta, 2011; Taris & Bok, 1998). Third, we extend on the lack of
fit theory (Heilman, 1983) by investigating anticipated belongingness
(i.e., the sense of secure, stable relatedness of being an accepted orga-
nizational in-group member; Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and expected
application success (i.e., the sense of possessing the relevant capabili-
ties for a successful application; Bandura, 1977; Riggs, Warka, Babasa,
Betancourt, & Hooker, 1994) as mechanisms through which advertise-
ment wording and recruiter gender influence intentions to apply. Our
findings contribute to a better understanding of why women may
refrain from, or choose to, apply to certain career opportunities.
Finally, following calls for HR management research to foster mean-
ingful change for women in the workplace (Kossek & Buzzanell,
2018), this work allows us to bridge the research-practice gap and to
derive empirical knowledge to help HR managers and organizations in
their pursuit of increasing gender diversity, especially in leadership.
2HENTSCHEL ET AL.
1.1 |Gender self-stereotyping
Gender stereotypes are over-generalized perceptions of men and
women. On average, people believe agentic characteristics are more
pronounced in men than women (e.g., assertiveness, dominance, inde-
pendence), while communal characteristics are more pronounced in
women than men (e.g., concern for others, kindness, emotional sensi-
tivity; Eagly, Nater, Miller, Kaufmann, & Sczesny, 2020; Fiske, Cuddy,
Glick, & Xu, 2002; Haines, Deaux, & Lofaro, 2016; Hentschel et al.,
2019; Manzi, 2019). Importantly, these gender stereotypes are not
just held about other men and women; people also apply these ste-
reotypes in relation to how they see themselves (Bem, 1974;
Hentschel et al., 2019; Spence & Buckner, 2000).
Gender differences in self-characterizations develop largely due
to gendered socialization experiences (Deaux & LaFrance, 1998;
Fagot, Hagan, Leinbach, & Kronsberg, 1985; Martin & Ruble, 2004;
Ruble & Martin, 1998; Wood & Eagly, 2002). Women perceive them-
selves to be higher on communal characteristics and lower on many
agentic characteristics than men do (Bem, 1974; Hentschel et al.,
2019; Spence & Buckner, 2000). Though some studies suggest that
women's self-perceived agency is increasing (Twenge, Campbell, &
Gentile, 2012), others show agency stability (Donnelly & Twenge,
2017). A recent study found that women (but not men) apply stereo-
types more to themselves than to others in their gender group; for
example, rating themselves as less assertive and less competent in
leadership than other women (Hentschel et al., 2019).
4
1.2 |Recruitment advertisement wording
Recruitment advertisements are an organization's main means of com-
municating with potential applicants and persuading them to apply
(Allen, Van Scotter, & Otondo, 2004; Hentschel & Horvath, 2015). For
candidates, they are an important signal from which to infer unknown
organizational and position characteristics (Connelly et al., 2011). With
information from advertisements, people assess how well they will fit
into an organization and position, and decide whether or not to apply
(Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Kristof, 1996).
Despite what one might think, recruitment advertisements for job
positions are often not gender-neutral but contain wording through
which one gender is targeted more than the other (Schneider &
Bauhoff, 2013). Indeed, jobs that are typically performed by men are
often advertised with more stereotypically masculine wording than
jobs typically performed by women (Gaucher et al., 2011). Such ste-
reotypical wording in recruitment advertisements for career develop-
ment programs may be an important cue that could potentially
influence women's evaluation of career opportunities.
Existing research supports this reasoning. The use of masculine
generics—using the pronoun “he”in advertisements when referring to
men and women rather than the more inclusive “he/she”or “she/
he”—has been found to lead to lower career attractiveness and to
fewer applications from women (Bem & Bem, 1973; Stout &
Dasgupta, 2011). Further, in languages with few gender-neutral terms
(e.g., German), women indicate lower application intentions to career
development programs which use the generic masculine title for
entrepreneur, in comparison to those who use both masculine and
feminine titles in combination (Hentschel, Horvath, et al., 2018). In
addition, women have been found to be less attracted to male domi-
nated occupations like plumbing or engineering if job advertisements
use stereotypically masculine wording (Gaucher et al., 2011).
1.3 |Recruiter gender
Applicants have been shown to gather information from recruiters, who
are viewed as representatives of the organization. In recruitment con-
texts, they communicate information about the position and the organi-
zation (Breaugh & Starke, 2000); they are often deployed for job fairs, in
recruitment video commercials, or during site visits. In a qualitative inter-
view study, women stated that organizational representatives were cues
for their interest in an organization, their fit assessments, and their deci-
sion to accept an offer from the organization (Rynes et al., 1991).
People are attracted by similarity (Byrne, 1971) and applicants
may choose situations or careers in which they meet people who are
similar to them (e.g., role models; Ely et al., 2011). When people
believe that they possess the same characteristics as prototypical
members of an occupation, they are more likely to identify with, be
attracted to, and enter that career (Devendorf & Highhouse, 2008;
Peters, Ryan, Haslam, & Fernandes, 2012). Also building on signaling
theory, Rynes (1991) suggests that like advertisements, recruiters sig-
nal the organizational culture or the desired attributes of a successful
candidate to potential applicants. Thus, female recruiters may signal
similarity and inclusion, suggesting women are welcome in the organi-
zation and increasing women's desire to apply (see, Avery & McKay,
2006; Ellemers & Rink, 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011).
To date, research findings on the effects of recruiter gender have
been mixed. Some studies have found no effects of recruiter gender on
the likelihood of applicants joining an organization (Barber & Roehling,
1993; Harris & Fink, 1987). Others have found female recruiters to
have a negative (Taylor & Bergmann, 1987) or a positive effect on
women (Liden & Parsons, 1986). Yet other research finds that recruiter
behaviors do not have a direct effect on organizational attraction, but
are used to infer unknown organizational attributes, which in turn pre-
dict attraction (Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson, 1998).
1.4 |Integrating lack of fit and signaling theories
Contrary to women's self-characterizations, leadership positions and
career opportunities are often perceived as agentic or stereotypically
masculine (Koenig, Mitchell, Eagly, & Ristikari, 2011; Kossek &
Buzzanell, 2018; Schein, 2001). These perceptions can have detrimen-
tal consequences for women' career decision-making. Lack of fit the-
ory (Heilman, 1983; 2001; 2012; Heilman, Manzi, & Braun, 2015)
suggests that people make fit assessments by comparing their (stereo-
typed) self-characterizations with the characteristics they perceive to
HENTSCHEL ET AL.3
be required for a certain position or career opportunity. As women
perceive themselves to be highly communal (Hentschel et al., 2019),
and believe leadership positions or career opportunities require highly
agentic characteristics, they experience a lack of fit between their
self-perception and the position.
Lack of fit theory (Heilman, 1983) further proposes that on the
basis of these fit assessments, people form expectations about how
they would perform in such a position. When women perceive a low
fit between themselves and the position, women will expect to fail. A
negative fit assessment and resulting expectation of failure can then
lead to negative self-evaluations and eventually to self-limiting
choices like refraining from pursuing such career opportunities. In line
with these predictions, research has shown that women perceive
themselves as less effective in leadership and in male-typed positions
(Haynes & Heilman, 2013; Hentschel et al., 2019; Paustian-Underdahl,
Walker, & Woehr, 2014; Powell & Butterfiled, 2015). Further, it has
been suggested that women show a lower motivation to lead and do
not strive to achieve leadership positions to the same extent (or for
the same reasons) as men do (Elprana et al., 2012; Powell &
Butterfield, 2003; Schuh et al., 2013).
Extending Lack of fit theory (1983), we propose that fit assess-
ments do not only influence women's performance expectations but
also (a) the level of anticipated belongingness to the organization and
its members, and (b) expected success of an application
(i.e., performance expectations to get a position). Striving for belong-
ing is grounded in essential human motives (i.e., collaboration, social
validation, and collective identity; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Individ-
uals develop a sense of who they are (i.e., their social identities)
through the organizations they belong to (Ashforth & Schinoff, 2016).
As women are stereotypically perceived as outsiders in leadership and
find it difficult to achieve relational authenticity in such positions
(Eagly, 2005), we expect that they will experience lower belonging-
ness to advertised career development programs. With regard to the
expected success of an application, the key question is whether
women are able to trust their abilities to achieve a certain goal
(i.e., build a sense of self-efficacy in relation to the targeted position
or program). On the basis of such judgments, they will make assess-
ments about their chances of getting the position if they were to
apply (Saks, Leck, & Saunders, 1995). If women perceive a lack of fit
between themselves and a male-typed career development program,
they may assume that they do not have the required competencies,
thus reducing their estimated chances of a successful application.
Depending on the information available, the perception of the
career opportunity can change, and subsequently alter women's fit
assessments. Signaling theory (Connelly et al., 2011) explains the
underlying process, suggesting that when individuals have limited
information available, they will make inferences to “fill the gaps”for
the purpose of decision-making. A signaler (e.g., an organization)
sends a signal (e.g., elements of a career development program) to the
receiver (e.g., a potential applicant who lacks information), who inter-
prets the signal and decides the best course of action (e.g., applying to
the program; Connelly et al., 2011). Thus, women considering a career
development program will interpret elements in the recruitment
process as informational cues about unknown characteristics of the
program (Rynes, 1991). Importantly, people make instrumental infer-
ences about positions (e.g., thinking “Taking part in this career develop-
ment program could strengthen my application portfolio”), but they also
make symbolic inferences (e.g., thinking “In this career development
program characteristics like dominance and assertiveness are valued”;
Highhouse, Thornbury, & Little, 2007). If the inferred information
results in negative (i.e., greater lack of fit) perceptions, the person is
unlikely to pursue that career opportunity (Heilman, 1983; Ryan, Sacco,
McFarland, & Kriska, 2000). Different signals (e.g., advertisement word-
ing and recruiter gender) can be processed at the same time and will
interact with each other to inform fit assessments (cf., Heilman &
Caleo, 2018).
1.5 |Effects of recruitment advertisement wording
and recruiter gender on women
We propose that women's perceived lack of fit with career development
programs will be attenuated if organizations employ advertisement word-
ing that aligns with women's self-characterizations (i.e., stereotypically
feminine rather than masculine wording). Stereotypically feminine word-
inginturnshouldincreasewomen'sperceivedfitandthereforeantici-
pated belongingness to the program as well as expected success of an
application and, consequently, increase application intentions. However, if
stereotypically masculine characteristics of the career development pro-
gram are made salient through advertisement wording, women will likely
perceive a greater lack of fit, anticipate lower belongingness, expect lower
application success, and have lower application intentions—ultimately
deterring them from a promising career opportunity.
We argue that interaction with other recruitment signals, in this
case recruiter gender, is crucial for predicting when or how recruit-
ment wording influences women's interest in career opportunities.
Specifically, a gender-inclusive signal—such as a female recruiter—will
reduce potential negative effects of a gender-biased signal—such as
stereotypically masculine advertisement wording. A recent study on
gendered cues in recruitment advertisements supports this rationale
and found that women were only hesitant to apply for career devel-
opment programs in entrepreneurship if they perceived solely mascu-
line recruitment signals (Hentschel, Horvath, et al., 2018). As soon as
one gender-inclusive cue was present (either in the form of a gender-
fair linguistic title or a female-typed or neutral picture in the advertise-
ment), women perceived greater fit and were more likely to apply.
1.6 |Effects of recruitment advertisement wording
and recruiter gender on men
While wording and recruiter gender will affect women's responses to
recruitment advertisements, we do not believe these factors will influ-
ence male applicants. Earlier research investigating wording in recruit-
ment advertisements (Gaucher et al., 2011; Taris & Bok, 1998) and
recruiter gender (Taylor & Bergmann, 1987) found no effects on male
4HENTSCHEL ET AL.
applicants. In addition, though one might argue that stereotypically
masculine wording is more in line with men's self-characterizations
than stereotypically feminine wording, communal wording is generally
more inclusive (Abele & Bruckmüller, 2011). In addition, female
recruiters can be perceived as more personable than male recruiters
(Liden & Parsons, 1986). Thus, we do not expect recruitment wording
or recruiter gender to affect men's evaluations of career development
programs.
In sum, we argue that gender cues in recruitment advertisement
affect women's expectations of belongingness and application suc-
cess, as well as application intentions to career development pro-
grams. When only masculine gender cues are present—a male
recruiter and stereotypically masculine wording—we expect negative
effects on women's evaluations of career development programs.
When the recruiter is female—and thus a gender-inclusive cue is
present—we expect no such negative effects of stereotypically mascu-
line wording.
Hypothesis 1 If the recruiter is male and the career development program
is advertised with stereotypically masculine (rather than feminine)
wording, women will report lower belongingness (H1a), application
success (H1b), and intentions to apply to the program (H1c).
If the recruiter is female, women will respond similarly to career
development programs advertised with stereotypically masculine
and feminine wording.
Hypothesis 1 is summarized in Table 1.
1.7 |Anticipated belongingness and expected
application success as mediators
In addition to the direct effects of advertisement wording and
recruiter gender, we expect that women's sense of belongingness and
their expected application success function as mediators for subse-
quent application intentions. We argued earlier that women's fit
assessments are likely to not only influence success and failure expec-
tations, but also expectations of belongingness to the organization
and its members. Belonging is a fundamental human need
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995) and people are unlikely to seek out con-
texts to which they believe they would not belong (Tellhed,
Bäckström, & Björklund, 2017). We, thus, expect that women will be
less likely to apply for career opportunities where they anticipate low
levels of belongingness. In line with this reasoning, research shows
that women's anticipation of belongingness is positively related to job
appeal (Gaucher et al., 2011) and application intentions (Hentschel
et al., 2019). Therefore, when only masculine gender cues are
present—a male recruiter and stereotypically masculine wording—we
expect that women will have lower intentions to apply to the career
development program because they do not feel that they belong to
the program. When the recruiter is female, however, we do not
expect negative effects of stereotypically masculine wording on
belongingness and therefore also not on women's intentions to apply
for the career development program.
Similarly, when women compare their characteristics to the charac-
teristics required for a position or career opportunity, they form expec-
tations about how successful they would be in said position
(i.e., success if fit is high and failure if fit is low). According to the Lack
of Fit theory (Heilman, 1983), expectations of success are likely to
result in career pursuit, while expectations of failure are likely to result
in self-limiting of career options and advancement. Building on this the-
oretical rationale, we argued that women's perceived lack of fit with a
career opportunity diminishes expectations of application success—and
expectations of application success are likely to influence application
intentions. If perceived application success is low, women will be less
likely to apply for two reasons: first, they may not want to waste time
by applying for positions or opportunities they are unlikely to receive
(see also expectancy theory, Vroom, 1964) and second, they may want
to prevent negative feelings associated with rejection (Barber &
Roehling, 1993). Therefore, when only masculine gender cues are
present—a male recruiter and stereotypically masculine wording—we
expect that women have lower expectations of success and subse-
quently lower intentions to apply to the career development program
because they do not feel that their application would be successful.
When the recruiter is female, however, we do not expect negative
effects of stereotypically masculine wording on expectations of success
and therefore not on women's intentions to apply for the career devel-
opment program.
In sum, we expect that anticipated belongingness and expected
application success mediate the interaction effect of advertisement
wording and recruiter gender on women's intention to apply for
career development programs.
Hypothesis 2 The effect of advertisement wording and recruiter
gender on women's intentions to apply will be mediated by
anticipated belongingness (H2a) and expected application
success (H2b).
Our research model is visualized in Figure 1.
TABLE 1 Summary of Hypothesis 1
Stereotypically masculine wording Stereotypically feminine wording Hypothesis section
Male recruiter Low belongingness High belongingness H1a
Low expected success High expected success H1b
Low intention to apply High intention to apply H1c
Female recruiter No differences
HENTSCHEL ET AL.5
2|STUDY 1
We conducted a video-based experiment to test whether advertise-
ment wording and recruiter gender have an impact on young women's
evaluations of early career development programs.
2.1 |Method
2.1.1 |Design and participants
We conducted an experiment with a 2 ×2 between-subjects design,
with advertisement wording (stereotypically masculine, stereotypically
feminine) and recruiter gender (male, female) as independent vari-
ables. Our sample
5
included 163 female (and for the exploratory ana-
lyses 166 male) university students. This population enabled us to
study young professional women's pursuit of career development pro-
grams. Students studied different majors at a German university
(majors: 40.5% business, 37.2% STEM, 10.2% social sciences, 8.7%
sports, 2.7% humanities). Students were predominantly white and
their age ranged from 18 to 43 years (M= 21.99, SD = 2.79). The
semester of study ranged from 1 to 15 (M= 4.42, SD = 2.84).
2.1.2 |Procedure
Students were recruited via email and on campus, and invited to a
research lab. Though our hypotheses focus on women, we recruited
both female and male students to account for possible gender differ-
ences. Participants were told that this study was designed to investi-
gate how students evaluate different career development programs
and that they would be asked to review one randomly selected adver-
tisement for a career development program. To improve experimental
realism (Aguinis & Bradley, 2014), students received a list with the
names of six programs offered by different organizations (three well-
known, existing organizations that students were likely to recognize,
and three fictitious organizations) and were told that they would be
evaluating one randomly assigned program from this list. However,
they were always assigned to review the same fictitious program. Par-
ticipants were then asked to watch a short video in which the career
development program was advertised. In the video, a recruiter
presented general information about the career development program
(i.e., workshops for individual development, networking opportuni-
ties), and explained that the main aim of the program was to qualify
participants for future leadership positions.
In line with the experimental design, students watched a male or
a female recruiter describing the career development program with
either stereotypically masculine or feminine wording. After watching
the video, students completed the questionnaire measuring the study
variables, and received 5 Euros for participation.
2.1.3 |Experimental manipulations
Advertisement wording and recruiter gender were manipulated in the
video. We manipulated advertisement wording by systematically
substituting stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine
words taken from the literature (e.g., Bem, 1974; Gaucher et al.,
2011). The stereotypically masculine words included: determined,
autonomous, outstanding, competences, leadership position, direct,
active, analytical, rational, push, outspoken, corporate influence, and
assert. The stereotypically feminine words included: committed,
responsible, talents, responsibility for employees, sociable, conscientious,
sensible, sincere, support, cooperate, social responsibility, honest, and
communicate. The manipulation is detailed in Table 2.
All study materials were presented in German. Words were
translated and back translated from English to German by indepen-
dent bilinguals (Brislin, 1980). We conducted a pretest, to ensure that
the stereotypically masculine words we chose were indeed perceived
as masculine and the stereotypically feminine words we chose were
indeed perceived as feminine. Eighteen female student participants
rated each of the words from the video script on a 7-point scale
ranging from −3“masculine”to 3 “feminine”. Participants indicated
that they perceived the stereotypically feminine words (M= 0.86; SD
= 0.15) to be significantly more feminine than the stereotypically
masculine words (M=−0.30; SD = 0.10), t(17) = 6.05, p< .001,
d= 2.18.
6
In the feminine wording condition, the organization offering the
career development program had a female name (Andrea Reichle
foundation) and recruiters were asked to present the program in a ste-
reotypically feminine communication style (i.e., a higher and slightly
softer voice); in the masculine wording condition the organization had
a male name (Andreas Reichle foundation) and recruiters were asked
to present the program in a stereotypically masculine communication
style (i.e., a deeper and slightly tougher voice). This setup allowed for
a more conservative test of our hypothesis (i.e., that female recruiters
can mitigate the effects of masculinity in advertisements).
Professional actors and actresses portrayed the recruiters. For reasons
of external and internal validity, we employed stimulus sampling (Wells &
Windschitl, 1999): We recorded two female and two male recruiters to
present each advertisement. Recruiters were white and a pretest with
16 participants rating pictures of the four actors indicated that they were
perceived to be between 35 and 42 years old. The actors wore grey busi-
ness suits and were filmed from the waist up in front of a white wall. No
FIGURE 1 Proposed mediation model
6HENTSCHEL ET AL.
significantly different results were found between the two male or the
two female actors within each wording condition. Data were therefore
combined for the two male and the two female actors per condition.
2.1.4 |Measures
We measured anticipated belongingness, application success, and
intention to apply. If not otherwise stated, ratings for all measures
were conducted on 7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 “totally dis-
agree”to 7 “totally agree”.Anticipated belongingness (based on
Gaucher et al., 2011) was measured with the three items “I would fit
well into this organization”,“the type of students who apply for this
program is very different from me”(reverse scored) and “I am similar
to most of the students in the program”(α
Women
= 0.84; α
Men
= 0.81).
Expected application success was measured with the three items “If I
applied for it, I would get into this program”,“I think, I would only
have limited chances of entering the program”(reverse coded), and “I
believe, if I applied I would be accepted for this program”,(α
Women
= 0.91; α
Men
= 0.91). Application intentions (based on Hentschel,
Horvath, et al., 2018) were measured with the two items “I would
apply for this program”and “How likely would it be that you apply for
this program?”(the second item was measured on a scale ranging from
1“very unlikely”to 7 “very likely”;α
Women
= 0.89; α
Men
= 0.85).
Control variables
Because more advanced students might evaluate career development
programs differently than students early in their studies (e.g., due to
clearer career goals or perceived proximity of entering the job market),
we controlled for students' current study semester in all analyses. In addi-
tion, we controlled for whether or not participants had been taking part
in a similar program (currently or ever), because prior experience may
influence their attention to specific aspects of the advertised program.
Table 3 summarizes means, standard deviations, and correlations
between the dependent variables for female (and male) participants.
2.2 |Results
We first describe the analyses conducted to test the hypotheses
about women. We then describe exploratory analyses for men.
2.2.1 |Hypotheses tests
We conducted 2 (advertisement wording: stereotypically masculine,
stereotypically feminine) ×2 (recruiter gender: male, female) ana-
lyses of variance for female participants.
Hypothesis 1 stated that women would have more negative reac-
tions to advertisements that contain stereotypically masculine com-
pared to feminine wording in terms of their belongingness (H1a),
expected application success (H1b), and intentions to apply to the
program (H1c) if the recruiter was male, but not if the recruiter was
female. To test this, we conducted pairwise comparisons (Fisher's
LSD) of the means in each condition. ANCOVA results of the
TABLE 2 Advertisement content and manipulations in Study 1
Advertisement with stereotypically masculine (stereotypically feminine)
wording
•The organization has sponsored determined (committed) and
autonomous (responsible) students to take part in the program over
the last 50 years
•Opportunity to acquire outstanding competencies (helpful talents)
for students through different workshops
•To qualify for a leadership position (a position with responsibility for
employees)
•Program fosters active (sociable) behavior and an analytical
(conscientious) work style
•Among program students a rational (sensible) and direct (sincere)
exchange is valued
•The exchange should be characterized by pushing (supporting) one
another to solve problems, interacting in an outspoken manner
(cooperating), and jointly asserting (honestly communicating)
•Students can form a network with personalities from business –
persons with corporate influence (social responsibility)
Note: Translations from the original German version.
TABLE 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations for female (male) students in Study 1
Variable MSD12 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Recruiter gender 0.51 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50) –(−0.01) (0.09) (0.01) (−0.02) (−0.03) (−0.03) (0.02)
2. Wording 0.48 (0.51) 0.50 (0.50) −0.02 –(−0.02) (0.07) (−0.01) (0.03) (−0.09) (−0.05)
3. Belongingness 3.96 (3.98) 1.39 (1.24) −0.05 0.08 –(0.44***) (0.55***) (0.03) (0.12) (−0.14)
4. Expected success 3.55 (3.76) 1.50 (1.38) −0.05 0.09 0.57*** –(0.34***) (0.09) (0.17*) (−0.23**)
5. Application intentions 2.95 (3.06) 1.51 (1.36) −0.03 0.08 0.69*** 0.56*** –(0.04) (0.09) (−0.16*)
6. Semester (covariate) 4.58 (4.27) 3.00 (2.67) −0.02 0.21 −0.12 −0.10 −0.07 –(0.16*) (−0.41***)
7. Program Status I (covariate) 0.06 (0.05) 0.23 (0.22) 0.02 0.04 0.07 0.20*** −0.03 0.13 –(−0.71***)
8. Program Status II (covariate) 0.89 (0.90) 0.31 (0.30) −0.11 0.06 0.04 −0.16*** 0.09 −0.16* −0.69*** –
Note: Recruiter gender was coded as 0 “male”and 1 “female”; Wording was coded as 0 “stereotypically masculine”and 1 “stereotypically feminine”;
Program status was measured with the categories “no, never”,“yes, currently”, and “yes, in the past”and was dummy coded into two separate variables for
covariate use: Program Status I (0 “no current or past program”,1“current program”) and Program Status II (0 “current or past program”,1“never a
program”); *p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
HENTSCHEL ET AL.7
individual scales are presented in Table 4.
7
Means, standard devia-
tions, and LSD comparisons for all conditions are presented in
Table 5.
Anticipated belongingness
Results of LSD comparisons were in line with Hypothesis 1a: with a
male recruiter, women anticipated significantly less belongingness in
response to the career development program advertised with mascu-
line compared to feminine wording (p= .039). However, with a female
recruiter, they anticipated similar levels of belongingness to the devel-
opment program, regardless of wording (p= .465).
Expected application success
In line with Hypothesis 1b, LSD comparisons indicated that with a
male recruiter, women were less likely to expect success of an applica-
tion for the career development program described with masculine
wording than to the one described with feminine wording (p= .033).
With a female recruiter, they indicated similar levels of fit to the
career development program, regardless of wording (p= .853).
Application intentions
LSD comparisons showed in line with Hypothesis 1c that with a male
recruiter, women were less likely to want to apply to the career
development program advertised with masculine wording than to the
one advertised with feminine wording (p= .028). With a female
recruiter, women indicated similar levels of application intentions,
regardless of wording (p= .391; see Figure 2).
Model test
Hypothesis 2 stated that the effect of advertisement wording and
recruiter gender on women's intentions to apply will be mediated by
anticipated belongingness (H2a) and expected application success
(H2b). We used the Process macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013, 2017) to
conduct mediation analyses. The independent variable was advertise-
ment wording (coded as 0 = masculine, 1 = feminine) and the modera-
tor variable was recruiter gender (coded as 0 = male recruiter, 1 =
female recruiter), the dependent variable was application intention,
and the mediators were anticipated belongingness and expected
application success. We used Model 8 with 5,000 bootstrap samples.
Effects were interpreted as statistically significant when the 95% con-
fidence intervals (CI) did not include 0. As in the ANCOVA analyses,
participants’semesters of study and program status were kept as
covariates.
Results showed that the interaction of advertisement wording
and recruiter gender significantly predicted anticipated belonging-
ness (b=−0.92, SE = 0.44, 95% CI [−1.79, −0.05]) but not expected
application success (b=−0.80, SE = 0.47, 95% CI [−1.72, 0.13]).
Conditional effects following up the significant interaction showed
that only with a male recruiter, but not with a female recruiter, did
wording significantly predict belongingness (male recruiter: Effect
= 0.69, SE = 0.31, 95% CI [0.07, 1.32]; female recruiter: Effect =
−0.23, SE = 0.31, 95% CI [−0.83, 0.38]). Both belongingness (b
= 0.57, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.43, 0.72]) and expected application suc-
cess (b= 0.28, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.15, 0.42]) predicted application
intentions. Only with a male recruiter, not with a female recruiter,
were the indirect effects of advertisement wording on application
intentions significant for anticipated belongingness (male
recruiter = 0.40, SE = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.75]; female recruiter =
−0.13, SE = 0.09, 95%CI [−0.48, 0.21]). Hypothesis 2a, which stated
that women's anticipated belongingness would mediate the effect of
advertisement wording on intentions to apply, was therefore
supported for male but not female recruiters. However, Hypothesis
2b, which stated that expected application success would also
TABLE 4 2 (recruiter gender) ×2 (wording) ANCOVA main and interaction effects in Study 1
Main effect of recruiter gender Main effect of wording Interaction effect
Effects for women
Belongingness F(1, 154) = 0.30, p=.586, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 154) = 0.934, p= .335, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 154) = 4.01, p= .047, η
p2
= 0.03
Expected success F(1, 154) = 0.85, p= .359, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 154) = 1.95, p= .165, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 154) = 2.78, p= .098, η
p2
= 0.02
Application intentions F(1, 153) = 0.06, p= .803, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 153) = 0.97, p= .325, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 153) = 4.83, p= .029, η
p2
= 0.03
Effects for men
Belongingness F(1, 159) = 1.21, p=.273, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 159) = 0.15, p= .699, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 159) = 0.94, p= .335, η
p2
= 0.01
Expected success F(1, 159) = 0.02, p= .880, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 159) = 0.79, p= .37, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 159) = 0.019, p= .891, η
p2
= 0.00
Application intentions F(1, 159) = 0.03, p= .859, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 159) = 0.03, p= .860, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 159) = 0.99, p= .321, η
p2
= 0.01
0
1
2
3
4
Male Recruiter Female Recruiter
Stereotypically
Masculine Wording
Stereotypically
Feminine Wording
FIGURE 2 Women's ratings of application intentions for the
career development program when advertised by a male or female
recruiter with stereotypically masculine versus stereotypically
feminine wording (Study 1)
8HENTSCHEL ET AL.
mediate the effect of advertisement wording on intentions to apply,
was not supported.
2.2.2 |Exploratory analyses for men
For exploratory purposes, we also conducted analyses with male par-
ticipants. As can be seen in Table 4, no main effects of advertisement
wording or recruiter gender nor any interactions emerged in the
ANCOVAs for anticipated belongingness, expected application suc-
cess, and application intentions (see Table 5 for means and standard
deviations for all conditions).
We also calculated the same mediation analyses of wording and
recruiter gender on the parallel mediators of belongingness and
expected application success. The only significant relationship we
found was that men's anticipated belongingness predicted their appli-
cation intentions (b= 0.60, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.44, 0.75]). Men's
anticipated belongingness, however, was not predicted by advertise-
ment wording nor recruiter gender.
2.3 |Summary
In Study 1, we found advertisement wording and recruiter gender
to influence female university students’evaluations and pursuit of
career opportunities. Stereotypically masculine wording lowered
women's anticipated belongingness, expected success, and inten-
tion to apply for a career development program, if recruited by a
man, but not if recruited by a woman. Interestingly, belongingness,
but not expected application success mediated this relationship.
These preliminary findings lead to a more nuanced understanding of
lack of fit in the context of career development programs. It is, how-
ever, important to replicate these findings in the field with people
already working , since we do not know whether these initial find-
ings are specific to university students, who are about to start their
careers, or if they are equally applicable to younger and older
female employees with professional experience.
3|STUDY 2
We conducted a second study to replicate and extend our initial find-
ings. In particular, with an employee sample, we were able to investi-
gate whether the findings of Study 1 were generalizable only to
younger women early in their careers, or also to older women, who
are likely to have more professional experience.
3.1 |Method
3.1.1 |Design and participants
As in Study 1, we conducted an experiment with a 2 ×2 between-
subjects design, with advertisement wording (stereotypically mascu-
line, stereotypically feminine) and recruiter gender (male, female) as
independent variables. Our sample
8
included 261 female (and
284 male) employees of German nationality (99%)
9
. Employees had
an average age of 44.7 years (SD = 11.4 years) and 23.3 years of
work experience (SD = 12.5 years). The majority of participants
worked full-time (81.7%). Further, 25.5% were currently in a leader-
ship role (with an average experience of 11.5 years). The majority of
participants were white (98.2%) and heterosexual (90.3%).
Employees worked in different sectors (1.1% raw materials,
e.g. agriculture; 18.5% production, e.g. industry and manufacture;
64.9% services, e.g. commerce, insurance, or health; 15.5% informa-
tion, e.g. communication or high tech), and represented a variety of
education levels (9-year Highschool diploma: 6.4%, 10-year
Highschool diploma: 37.4%, 12- or 13-year Highschool diploma:
23.9%, undergraduate degree or similar: 11.4%, postgraduate degree
or similar: 19.8%; PhD: 1.1%). The majority of participants had not
TABLE 5 Means (and standard deviations) for each condition in Study 1
Male recruiter Female recruiter
Stereotypically
masculine wording
Stereotypically
feminine wording
Stereotypically masculine
wording
Stereotypically
feminine wording
Women
Belongingness 3.73 (1.57)
a
4.33 (1.31)
b
3.97 (1.30)
a,b
3.81 (1.38)
a,b
Expected success 3.29 (1.53)
a
3.98 (1.39)
b
3.52 (1.48)
a,b
3.44 (1.44)
a,b
Intention to apply 2.63 (1.52)
a
3.36 (1.59)
b
3.02 (1.49)
a,b
2.78 (1.45)
a,b
Men
Belongingness 3.99 (1.26)
a
3.74 (1.31)
a
4.01 (1.26)
a
4.13 (1.15)
a
Expected success 3.64 (1.43)
a
3.82 (1.46)
a
3.63 (1.36)
a
3.88 (1.30)
a
Intention to apply 2.98 (1.15)
a
3.19 (1.54)
a
3.14 (1.39)
a
2.94 (1.38)
a
Note: Ratings were given on a 7-point scale in which higher scores indicate more positive ratings (higher belongingness, higher expected success, higher
intention to apply). Means in a row that do not share subscripts differ significantly at p< .05 as indicated by LSD comparisons.
HENTSCHEL ET AL.9
participated in a career development program (80.7%) prior to taking
part in the study.
3.1.2 |Procedure
We collected data online using the large German panel provider res-
pondi. Respondi is a certified panel provider, achieving high data qual-
ity through fair incentivization, transparent communication, and high
data management standards. Participants were told that we were
interested in how people evaluate different career development pro-
grams. We asked participants to imagine that they had researched dif-
ferent career development programs, and were now in the process of
gathering additional information about the programs by getting in
touch with the recruiters for these programs directly. We then told
them that they would review the information about one randomly
selected career development program. Participants then saw a picture
of either a male of female recruiter (screenshots from the videos in
Study 1) with a speech bubble containing the career development
program description. The description directly addressed them as a
potential candidate for the program (e.g., “In the program you will
develop…” ), adapted from the video script used in Study 1. Partici-
pants saw the recruiter three times with three different pictures
(i.e., picture from hip height, picture of the face, again the picture from
hip height) with the program description broken down into three
parts, presented in one speech bubble each. This was done to ensure
participants would read all parts of the program description carefully.
Recruiters introduced themselves by name (Christiane or Thomas
Meier) and stated that they had been in the role as a recruiter for the
career development program over the past five years. They further
explained that they were part of the selection committee for the pro-
gram. They mentioned that the task of selecting candidates for the
program was of personal importance to them, because they had previ-
ously taken part in and benefitted from the program. This was done to
ensure that participants perceived the recruiter as representing the
program. Following this information, participants were asked to fill in
the questionnaire.
3.1.3 |Experimental manipulations
Advertisement wording (stereotypically masculine, stereotypically
feminine) was manipulated in the program description and recruiter
gender (male, female) was manipulated via the recruiter pictures and
names. In the program descriptions, parallel to Study 1, we systemati-
cally substituted stereotypically masculine and stereotypically femi-
nine words taken from the literature (Bem, 1974; Gaucher et al.,
2011). The stereotypically masculine words were: determined, out-
standing, leadership position, analytical, determined manner, influential,
challenge, strategic planning, task-oriented, ambitious, goal-oriented, chal-
lenging, assertive, management functions, career aspirations, entrepreneurial
thinking, influence, self-assured, assertiveness. The stereotypically feminine
words were: committed, conscientious, positions with employee
responsibility, interpersonal, communication talent, supportive, encourage,
intuitive, people-oriented, social, trusting, supporting, cooperative, employee
responsibility, commitment to goals, sustainability orientation, responsibility,
sociable, team spirit. The manipulation is detailed in Table 6.
3.1.4 |Measures
Anticipated belongingness (α
Women
= 0.88; α
Men
= 0.83) and intention
to apply (α
Women
= 0.95; α
Men
= 0.95) were measured with the same
items as in Study 1. We slightly changed the measurement of
expected application success from Study 1 to align it with the
established measure of Saks et al. (1995) and used the two items: “I
think the program committee would be interested in selecting some-
one like me for the program”and “If I were to apply for this program, I
think there is a good chance that I would be accepted for the pro-
gram”(α
Women
= 0.93; α
Men
= 0.93). Ratings were conducted on
7-point Likert scales ranging from 1 “totally disagree”to 7 “totally
agree”.
Control variables
Because people with prior experience in a leadership position might
evaluate career development programs differently, whether or not
participants were in a leadership position was controlled for. We also
controlled for whether people had participated in a career develop-
ment program in the past, because such an experience might influence
whether or not they would be willing to apply for another career
TABLE 6 Advertisement content and manipulations in Study 2
Advertisement with stereotypically masculine (stereotypically feminine)
wording
•Career development program “Managers of the Future”
•Promotion of outstanding (conscientious) and determined
(committed) employees through various workshops
•Aim of the program is to qualify participants for future leadership
positions (positions with employee responsibility) and to develop
current leaders
•Development of analytical (interpersonal) skills and a determined
manner (communication talent)
•An influential (supportive) mentor will continuously challenge
(encourage) on the way through the career development program,
for example in building an extensive network
•Learning of strategic (intuitive) planning,task-oriented (people-
oriented) leadership, as well as ambitious (social) behavior
•In the group of program participants, a great value is placed on
goal-oriented (trusting) interactions
•Exchange should be characterized by participants challenging
(supporting) one another and being assertive (cooperative)
•Looking for people with the motivation to take on management
functions (employee responsibility)
•Participants should have high career aspirations (commitment to
goals), entrepreneurial thinking (sustainability orientation) and the
desire to fill positions with influence (responsibility)
•Participants should be self-assured (sociable) and have very high
assertiveness (team spirit)
Note: Translations from the original German version.
10 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
development program. We further controlled for participants’age,
sexual orientation (as this may be related to their gender-related
self-views and perceptions of the advertisement), and ethnicity
(as this may be related to people's perceptions of the white
recruiters; although it is important to note that the fictional
recruiters and 98% of our participants were white).
Table 7 summarizes means, standard deviations, and correla-
tions between all study variables for female (and male) participants.
3.2 |Results
We first describe the analyses conducted to test our hypotheses
about women. We then describe exploratory results including
employee age and male participants.
3.2.1 |Hypotheses tests
We again conducted 2 (advertisement wording: stereotypically mas-
culine, stereotypically feminine) ×2 (recruiter gender: male, female)
analyses of covariance for female participants. As described earlier,
age, leadership position, past career development program participa-
tion, sexual orientation, and ethnicity were entered as covariates in
the analyses. ANCOVA results are presented in Table 8.
10
There were
no significant effects of recruiter gender and no significant interactions
between wording and gender for the dependent measures of belong-
ingness (H1a), expected success (H1b), and application intentions
(H1c). The effect of advertisement wording was significant; when femi-
nine wording was used, women's belongingness (M=4.33,SD = 1.46),
expected success (M= 4.50, SD = 1.59) and application intentions (M
= 4.00, SD = 2.05) to the career development program were higher
than were their belongingness (M=3.81,SD =1.61), expected success
(M= 4.08, SD = 1.62) and application intentions (M= 3.48, SD = 1.95)
when masculine wording was used.
Model test
To test the full model in line with Hypotheses 2a and 2b, we used
the Process SPSS macro (Hayes, 2013, 2017) and Model 8 with
5,000 bootstrap samples and the same covariates as in the
ANCOVA analyses. We entered wording (0 = stereotypically mascu-
line, 1 = stereotypically feminine) as the independent variable,
recruiter gender (0 = male recruiter, 1 = female recruiter) as the
moderator, belongingness and expected success as parallel media-
tors, and application intentions as the dependent variable. Results
show that wording only significantly predicted belongingness (b
= 0.57, SE = 0.26, 95% CI [0.07, 1.08]) but not expected success (b
= 0.39, SE = 0.26, 95% CI [−0.14, 0.92]), but that both belonging-
ness (b= 0.77, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.64, 0.90]) and expected success
(b= 0.35, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.23, 0.48]) predicted application
intentions. In line with Hypothesis 2a, the indirect effect of wording
on application intentions via anticipated belongingness was found
to be significant only with a male—but not female—recruiter (male
TABLE 7 Means, standard deviations, and correlations for women (men) in Study 2
Variable MSD12345678910
1. Recruiter gender 0.52 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50) –(0.00) (−0.04) (−0.03) (−0.07) (0.07) (0.07) (0.01) (0.03) (−0.02)
2. Wording 0.49 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50) 0.03 –(−0.01) (−0.03) (−0.01) (0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (−0.08) (−0.03)
3. Belongingness 4.06 (3.98) 1.56 (1.48) 0.03 0.17** –(0.74***) (0.82***) (−0.08) (0.27***) (0.29***) (.00) (−.04)
4. Expected success 4.28 (4.33) 1.62 (1.62) 0.03 0.13* 0.69*** –(0.76***) (−0.13*) (0.29***) (0.33***) (−0.05) (−0.04)
5. Application intentions 3.74 (3.83) 2.02 (1.94) 0.03 0.13* 0.79*** 0.69*** –(−0.13*) (0.21***) (0.25***) (0.01) (−0.04)
6. Participant age 45.15 (44.24) 11.26 (11.27) −0.00 −0.08 −0.19** −0.19** −0.19** –(0.14*) (0.07) (−0.10) (−.01)
7. Leadership position (covariate) 0.21 (0.29) 0.41 (0.45) 0.12
*
0.01 0.33*** 0.36*** 0.30*** −0.05 –(0.48***) (−0.09) (0.00)
8. Past career development program (covariate) 0.17 (0.21) 0.38 (0.41) 0.06 0.03 0.23*** 0.14* 0.15* 0.10 0.29*** –(−0.01) (0.02)
9. Ethnicity (covariate) 0.02 (0.02) 0.14 (0.13) 0.02 −0.03 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.03 0.13* −0.06 –(0.12)
10. Sexual orientation (covariate) 0.07 (0.12) 0.26 (.33) 0.03 0.11 −0.01 −0.08 −0.00 −0.11 −0.03 −0.05 −0.04 –
Note: Recruiter gender was coded as 0 “male”and 1 “female”; Wording was coded as 0 “stereotypically masculine”and 1 “stereotypically feminine”; Leadership position was coded with 0 “no leadership position
and 1 “leadership position”; Past career development program was with 0 “no past career development program participation”and 1 “past career development program participation”; due to low diversity in
ethnicity and sexual orientation, ethnicity was coded with 0 “white”and 1 “other”and sexual orientation was coded with 0 “heterosexual”and 1 “homosexual, bisexual, or other”;*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.
HENTSCHEL ET AL.11
recruiter = 0.44, SE = 0.20, 95% CI [0.05, 0.82]; female recruiter = 0.28,
SE = 0.19, 95%CI [−0.09, 0.66]). Contrary to Hypothesis 2b, and in
line with the results from Study 1, the indirect effect of wording on
application intentions via expected success was not significant inde-
pendent of recruiter gender (male recruiter = 0.14, SE = 0.10, 95% CI
[−0.04, 0.34]; female recruiter = 0.14, SE = 0.09, 95%CI [−0.04, 0.34]). In
sum, supporting Hypothesis 2a, but not 2b, these results suggest that
women were more likely to apply to career development programs with
a male recruiter, when advertisement wording was stereotypically femi-
nine rather than masculine, because they felt a greater sense of
belonging.
3.2.2 |Exploratory analyses for women's age
We investigated if results would be different for younger versus
older women, who are likely to find themselves in different career
stages and with different levels of professional experience. Following
Ng and Feldman (2008) we choose the cutoff age of 40 years to
divide our sample of women into two age groups: Younger women
(who are under 40 years, N= 90) and older women (who are 40 years
and older, N= 171)
11
. We conducted a 2 (advertisement wording:
stereotypically masculine, stereotypically feminine) ×2 (recruiter
gender: male, female) ×2 (women's age group: younger, older)
ANCOVA, while still controlling for leadership position, past career
development program participation, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.
In Table 9, the main effects and interactions for belongingness,
expected success, and application intentions are displayed: Again, we
found the main effects of wording on the three dependent variables,
indicating more positive evaluations of women when feminine word-
ing was used. We also found main effects for age, indicating that
older women are less likely to anticipate belongingness, expect suc-
cess, or intend to apply, than younger women. Finally, we found a
significant three-way interaction of age, wording, and recruiter gen-
der on application intentions and three-way interactions on belong-
ingness and expected success that approached significance.
Following Rosnow and Rosenthal (1991), we followed up these
results with LSD comparisons to test our hypotheses for younger
and older women separately (Table 10).
For younger women, we replicated the findings of Study 1. When
the recruiter was male, stereotypically masculine wording led women
to anticipate lower belongingness (H1a; p= .014), to expect lower
application success (H1b; p= .013), and to indicate lower application
intentions (H1c; p= .011) compared to feminine wording. When the
recruiter was female, younger women indicated similar levels of
belongingness (p= .876), expected success (p= .731), and application
intentions (p= .790) for feminine and masculine wording. Older
women, however, did not evaluate career development programs dif-
ferently depending on recruiter gender and wording used. Results for
belongingness are illustrated in Figure 3.
TABLE 8 2 (recruiter gender) x 2 (wording) ANCOVA main and interaction effects in Study 2
Main effect of recruiter gender Main effect of wording Interaction effect
Effects for women
Belongingness F(1, 252) = 0.11, p=.736, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 252) = 7.04, p= .008, η
p2
= 0.03 F(1, 252) = 0.33, p= .566, η
p2
= 0.00
Expected success F(1, 252) = 0.11, p= .739, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 252) = 4.61, p= .033, η
p2
= 0.02 F(1, 252) = 0.00, p= .976, η
p2
= 0.00
Application intentions F(1, 252) = 0.02, p= .898, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 252) = 3.91, p= .049, η
p2
= 0.02 F(1, 252) = 0.07, p= .794, η
p2
= 0.00
Effects for men
Belongingness F(1, 275) = 0.77, p=.381, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 275) = 0.13, p= .721, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 275) = 0.30, p= .583, η
p2
= 0.00
Expected success F(1, 275) = 0.34, p= .560, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 275) = 0.73, p= .393, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 275) = 3.27, p= .072, η
p2
= 0.01
Application intentions F(1, 275) = 1.46, p= .227, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 275) = 0.06, p= .802, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 275) = 1.84, p= .177, η
p2
= 0.01
TABLE 9 Results of 2 (wording) ×2 (recruiter gender) ×2 (age group) ANCOVA for women
Belongingness Expected Success Application Intentions
Recruiter gender main effect F(1, 249) = 0.00, p= .993, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 0.03, p= .870, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 0.15, p= .700, η
p2
= 0.00
Wording main effect F(1, 249) = 6.42, p= .012, η
p2
= 0.03 F(1, 249) = 5.37, p= .021, η
p2
= 0.02 F(1, 249) = 5.21, p= .023, η
p2
= 0.02
Age main effect F(1, 249) = 5.85, p= .016, η
p2
= 0.02 F(1, 249) = 7.42, p= .007, η
p2
= 0.03 F(1, 249) = 4.20, p= .041, η
p2
= 0.02
Recruiter gender ×wording F(1, 249) = 1.52, p= .219, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 249) = 0.45, p= .506, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 0.18, p= .671, η
p2
= 0.00
Age ×recruiter gender F(1, 249) = 0.46, p= .496, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 0.15, p= .699, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 0.87, p= .353, η
p2
= 0.00
Age ×wording F(1, 249) = 0.03, p= .871, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 0.91, p= .340, η
p2
= 0.00 F(1, 249) = 1.00, p= .319, η
p2
= 0.00
Age ×recruiter gender ×wording F(1, 249) = 3.26, p= .072, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 249) = 3.25, p= .073, η
p2
= 0.01 F(1, 249) = 4.94, p= .027, η
p2
= 0.02
12 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
3.2.3 |Exploratory analyses for men
For male participants, ANCOVA results indicated no main effects
of advertisement wording or recruiter gender on anticipated
belongingness, expected application success, and application inten-
tions (see Table 9 for ANCOVA results and Table 10 for means
and standard deviations) nor were there any significant interac-
tions when men's age (older, younger) was added as a separate
predictor in the ANCOVAs (significance levels of three-way inter-
actions between wording, recruiter gender, and age: p's =
.734–.923). Thus, as in Study 1, wording and recruiter gender did
not affect men's evaluations of career development programs. We
also found no mediation of wording and recruiter gender on men's
application intentions via belongingness, expected application suc-
cess. The only significant relationships were belongingness (b
=0.78, SE = 0.06, 95%CI [0.65, 0.90]) and expected success (b
=0.39, SE = 0.06, 95%CI [0.27, 0.50]) predicting application
intentions.
3.3 |Summary
The results of Study 2 replicated the findings of Study 1 in that
women's anticipated belongingness, but not expected application suc-
cess, mediated the relationship between wording and application
intentions: masculine wording affected women's evaluations of the
TABLE 10 Means (and standard deviations) for each condition in Study 2
Male recruiter Female recruiter
Stereotypically
masculine
wording
Stereotypically
feminine
wording
Stereotypically
masculine
wording
Stereotypically
feminine
wording
Younger women
Belongingness 3.78 (1.34)
a
4.68 (1.33)
b
4.43 (1.01)
a,b
4.51 (1.57)
a,b
Expected success 4.11 (1.69)
a
5.03 (1.31)
b
4.56 (1.12)
a,b
4.81 (1.60)
a,b
Intention to
apply
3.50 (1.97)
a
4.80 (1.76)
b
3.81 (1.42)
a,b
4.17 (2.02)
a,b
Older women
Belongingness 3.66 (1.73)
a
4.19 (1.28)
a
3.73 (1.73)
a
4.19 (1.28)
a
Expected success 3.99 (1.61)
a
4.18 (1.39)
a
3.97 (1.76)
a
4.31 (1.82)
a
Intention to
apply
3.40 (2.06)
a
3.46 (1.96)
a
3.41 (2.06)
a
4.01 (2.21)
a
Men
Belongingness 4.11 (1.41)
a
3.96 (1.48)
a
3.87 (1.61)
a
3.96 (1.42)
a
Expected success 4.62 (1.58)
a
4.14 (1.48)
b
4.15 (1.72)
a,b
4.42 (1.67)
a,b
Intention to
apply
4.14 (1.94)
a
3.78 (1.79)
a
3.55 (2.07)
a
3.85 (1.95)
a
Note: Ratings were given on a 7-point scale in which higher scores indicate more positive ratings (higher belongingness, higher expected success, higher
intention to apply). Means in a row that do not share subscripts differ significantly at p< .05 as indicated by LSD comparisons.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Male Recruiter Female Recruiter Male Recruiter Female Recruiter
Younger Women Older Women
Stereotypically
masculine wording
Stereotypically
feminine wording
FIGURE 3 Younger and older
women's ratings of belongingness if the
career development program is
advertised by a male or female recruiter
with stereotypically masculine versus
stereotypically feminine wording
(Study 2)
HENTSCHEL ET AL.13
career development program only if used by a male recruiter, but not
if used by a female recruiter. However, the buffering effects of female
recruiters we found in the sample of university students in Study
1 were only replicated for younger women, but not older women in
the employee sample of Study 2. We again found no effects of
recruiter gender or advertisement wording on men.
4|DISCUSSION
We set out to apply and extend lack of fit theory (Heilman, 1983) and
integrate it with signaling theory (Connelly et al., 2011), in the context
of career opportunities. Another important purpose of our research
was to test ethical and easy-to-implement interventions with the
potential to increase gender equality in leadership and facilitate
women and men's career progression. For this purpose, we focused
on predictors of women's intentions to apply to career development
programs, which enables them to enhance their leadership potential
(Day & Dragoni, 2015; Phillips & Imhoff, 1997; Vinnicombe & Singh,
2002). We reasoned that gender self-stereotyping may inhibit
women's career aspirations including the pursuit of advantageous
career development programs (Heilman, 1983). Specifically, we
expected that signals sent through advertisements and recruiters for
career development programs may affect women's intentions to apply
to such programs, reducing their expected application success and
anticipated belongingness to the programs.
Results of two experimental studies showed that stereotypically
masculine wording negatively influences women's evaluations of
career development programs. Stereotypically masculine wording in
recruitment advertisements resulted in women, but not men, indicat-
ing lower anticipated belongingness, lower expected success of an
application, and, ultimately, lower application intentions. These nega-
tive effects of wording could only be mitigated by a female recruiter
for younger women—both during women's time at university in Study
1, or as employees in Study 2. We further found anticipated belong-
ingness, but not expected application success, mediated the relation-
ship of male recruiters’wording use on application intentions. Type of
wording and recruiter gender had no influence on men's evaluations
of career opportunities.
Our findings complement past research on the negative influence
of masculine pronouns, position titles, language, pictures, or applicant
requirements in job advertisements on women's attraction to organi-
zations and interest in positions (Avery & McKay, 2006; Bem & Bem,
1973; Bosak & Sczesny, 2008; Gaucher et al., 2011; Hentschel,
Horvath, et al., 2018; Hentschel & Horvath, 2015; Horvath, 2015;
Stout & Dasgupta, 2011; Taris & Bok, 1998). Our work extends on
the existing literature by shedding light on a potentially overlooked
barrier for women's career advancement: uncovering the negative
influence of stereotypically masculine wording on women's evalua-
tions in the context of career development programs and the role it
can play in spoken in addition to written form. It further highlights the
role of stereotypically feminine wording as a potential starting point
for increasing women's perceived fit with career opportunities,
potentially enhancing the likelihood that they advance to higher-level
organizational positions.
Importantly, only with a male recruiter, did stereotypically mascu-
line wording negatively influence younger women's fit perceptions and
consequently their application intentions. Only when both male-typed
advertisement signals were combined—masculine wording and amale
recruiter—was younger women's pursuit of career development pro-
grams diminished. With a female recruiter, the type of wording seemed
inconsequential for their anticipated belongingness, expected applica-
tion success, and subsequent application intentions. This finding is in
line with other research, which suggests that female students are only
hesitant to apply to career opportunities when all characteristics in the
recruitment process are male-typed (Hentschel, Horvath, et al., 2018).
While advertisement wording affected women across age groups,
a female recruiter mitigated the negative effects of male-typed word-
ing only for younger women but not older women. The finding that
female recruiters were less relevant for older women aligns with pre-
vious arguments that inexperienced individuals may be more
influenced by surface characteristics such as recruiter gender
(Larsen & Phillips, 2002). There are several possible reasons for this
finding, which warrant further research and replication. Older women
are likely to have developed solid professional (or leadership) identi-
ties over time (Gibson, 2003), and might therefore be less susceptible
to the influence of similarity to others involved in the program. To
them, the contents of the program (i.e., wording signals) may matter
more than peripheral signals (i.e., recruiter gender). In addition, older
women may be used to being in male-dominated business settings;
they may be used to men being visible in different organizational posi-
tions. Thus, a male recruiter may be less of an informative signal for
them. However, our finding that recruiter gender impacts career
decision-making for young women has important implications seeing
that vital career decisions are likely to be made just before or after
graduation (London, 1983; Morgan, Isaac, & Sansone, 2001).
Across both studies, only anticipated belongingness (but not
expected success) mediated the effect of advertisement wording on
application intentions, and only when the recruiter was male but not
when the recruiter was female. This mediating role of anticipated
belongingness is in line with other research that found belongingness
to mediate the relationship between job advertisement characteristics
and job appeal (Gaucher et al., 2011) or application intentions
(Hentschel, Horvath, et al., 2018). However, in our research expected
application success did not mediate the effect of male recruiters and
wording on application intentions as lack of fit theory would suggest
(Heilman, 1983). Although women's expected application success is
affected by the interaction of stereotypical wording and recruiter gen-
der, the effect is weaker than the effect on belongingness
(as indicated in Table 4). A potential explanation is that belongingness
may predominantly depend on contextual factors (in this case, recruit-
ment advertisement wording and recruiter gender), while expected
success of an application will likely depend on both contextual factors
and personal factors such as general self-confidence.
Finally, the minimal effects of advertisement wording and
recruiter gender on men are notable. Apart from the fact that men's
14 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
belongingness and expected application success were related to appli-
cation intentions, we did not find any direct effects of advertisement
wording and recruiter gender on any of the three dependent variables
for men. This lack of effects is in line with earlier research (Gaucher
et al., 2011; Taris & Bok, 1998), suggesting that men may have a lower
threshold for making fit assessments. Indeed, men tend to experience
more self-confidence than women (Lenney, 1977), and may therefore
view themselves as more fitting to any career opportunity. In addition,
stereotypically feminine (communal) characteristics are generally
inclusive and often perceived as very positive (Eagly & Mladinic,
1989). We know that both men and women infer more positive orga-
nizational characteristics and are more attracted to employment
opportunities when recruiters are friendly rather than unfriendly (the
study only investigated male recruiters; Goltz & Giannantonio, 1995),
which may support our interpretation of communal wording attracting
men as well as women. This interpretation seemingly contradicts the
finding that female participation can devalue career options in men's
eyes (Ellemers, Rink, Derks, & Ryan, 2012). However, other findings
suggest that while men perceive themselves as less communal than
women, they perceive themselves as more communal than other men
(Hentschel et al., 2019). Thus, they may still anticipate that they fit
into a career development program described in stereotypically femi-
nine communal terms.
4.1 |Theoretical and research contributions
Lack of fit theory (Heilman, 1983) discusses the cognitive process of
women's lack of fit perceptions with male-typed career positions and
paths, and women's negative performance expectations and subse-
quent self-limiting career choices. Our work contributes to a more
nuanced understanding of lack of fit theory in the context of career
development. Specifically, the findings suggest that traditionally male-
typed positions or domains—like career opportunities in the form of
career development programs—do not have to be perceived as male-
typed per se. We found that if female-typed aspects of a career devel-
opment program are made salient during the recruitment process
(through wording and recruiter), women do not necessarily perceive a
lack of fit. Our results also support signaling theory (Connelly et al.,
2011) and suggest that with even small changes in the signals that
organizations send, women's interest in career opportunities can be
increased. Thus, signaling theory and lack of fit theory can be integrated
to explain how organizational signals during recruitment influence
women's perceptions of traditionally male-typed career opportunities,
and consequently their fit assessments and evaluations of such oppor-
tunities. In line with this theoretical idea, research on targeted recruit-
ment has also shown that organizations can facilitate certain applicant
groups’interests by influencing the information presented in the
recruitment process (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Casper, Wayne, &
Manegold, 2013). Our findings contribute to this body of research by
revealing that to be more aligned with women's self-perceptions, career
opportunities should be advertised with more communal and less ste-
reotypically masculine signals that make it clear that career
opportunities are gender inclusive. Specifically, stereotypically feminine
wording in advertisements is one such signal of gender inclusivity orga-
nizations can send to increase women's anticipated belongingness (see
also Gaucher et al., 2011).
Our research is pioneering in regard to the differential insights
into mediating mechanisms. We were able to uncover that it is not
expected application success or failure, but the anticipation of belong-
ingness which mediates the effect of advertisement wording and
recruiter gender on women's choices to engage in career develop-
ment; low anticipated belongingness can translate into career-limiting
behavior in the form of reduced intentions to apply. Thus, our results
show that the social need for belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) is
a key mechanism via which women make career decisions. From the
signals communicated with a male-typed advertisement, women are
likely to infer that people taking part in the career development pro-
gram have predominantly stereotypically masculine characteristics
while many women may perceive themselves to have predominantly
stereotypically feminine characteristics—and, thus, perceiving them-
selves to be incongruent with the position. Perceiving dissimilarity
with others is likely to result in low anticipated belongingness
(Good & Good, 1974; Montoya & Horton, 2012). Further, research on
relational demography suggests that if people perceive themselves to
be different from others in a certain group or setting, this perception
will negatively impact their experiences, for example, lead to lower
levels of psychological attachment to the group (Tsui, Egan, &
O'Reilly, 1992). In line with this, tokenism (i.e., being the only or one
of very few women in a setting dominated by men; Kanter, 1977) can
negatively influence women's cognitions, feelings, and behaviors.
Women in token positions often intend to leave, because they feel
that they do not belong there (King, Hebl, George, & Matusik, 2010).
As our findings for career development programs illustrate, women
may already anticipate such negative effects even before entering the
actual position.
4.2 |Practical implications for HR management
Our findings facilitate evidence-based recommendations for how
organizations can recruit more women and, thereby, increase gender
equality (Ely et al., 2011; Gipson, Pfaff, Mendelsohn, Catenacci, &
Burke, 2017; Heilman & Caleo, 2018; Shore, Cleveland, & Sanchez,
2018). While much has been written about the subject of achieving
gender equality in leadership, not all recommendations are equally
evidence-based, and some guidance can even harm progress (Caleo &
Heilman, 2019; Chrobot-Mason, Hoobler, & Burno, 2018; Dobbin
et al., 2015; Dobbin & Kalev, 2016). Our work offers recommenda-
tions for organizations to adapt their communication rather than
working toward “fixing women”(Gloor, Morf, Paustian-Underdahl, &
Backes-Gellner, 2020).
A key problem that we address with this research is the so-called
leaky pipeline; that women drop out even before they reach critical
career stages. Career development programs familiarize participants
with leadership roles and teach them the skills to both advance their
HENTSCHEL ET AL.15
career and be a good leader (Day & Dragoni, 2015; Knipfer,
Shaughnessy, Hentschel, & Schmid, 2017). We strongly suggest that
HR managers reflect the set-up and advertising of career development
programs from a gender perspective. Specifically, our research shows
that to motivate more women to apply for career development pro-
grams, organizations should take the opportunity to adapt their
recruitment tools. Indeed, organizations may need to realize that they
will lose qualified talent if they do not pay attention to their recruit-
ment tools and post unwelcoming recruitment advertisements
(Ryan, 2013).
Our results suggest that organizations need to send gender-
inclusive signals when they advertise career development programs,
because women seem to be especially hesitant to apply if they receive
solely male-typed signals like stereotypically masculine wording and a
male recruiter. Ashforth and Mael (1989, p. 25) argued that “individuals
tend to choose activities congruent with salient aspects of their identi-
ties, and they support the institutions embodying those identities.”We
recommend that organizations seize the opportunity to include (addi-
tional) stereotypically feminine wording in both internal and external
job advertisements and on websites and that they include female repre-
sentatives in different stages of the recruitment process (e.g., in recruit-
ment videos, at employment fairs, during graduate on-site visits and as
part of graduate schemes). Indeed, some organizations already strategi-
cally show women in recruitment videos (Crush, 2015). Our results sug-
gest that suitable (female) role models should advertise career
development programs (like programs to develop future leaders). From
a leader identity perspective, self-to-leader comparisons strengthen
people's motivation to lead (Guillén, Mayo, & Korotov, 2015). Integrat-
ing these findings with our results, recruiters can likely be role models
for young women strengthening their sense of being part of the pro-
gram and subsequently fostering their careers. In addition, the wording
may be rarely reflected upon when advertisements are written, and
researchers and practitioners alike need to raise awareness for the rele-
vance of stereotypically masculine and feminine wording. Because men
are just as likely to apply, independent of gendered recruitment signals,
using stereotypically feminine wording and female recruiters seems
generally beneficial and ethical.
Our findings support low-cost changes with potentially a large
impact on organizational diversity and gender equality (see also Linos,
2018). Indeed, with more women in the talent pool, organizations may
also be more likely to select women, increasing gender equality in lead-
ership. We recommend embedding these changes into a strong HRM
system (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) for diversity. That is, an HRM system
that does not only send signals to welcome women during the recruit-
ment process, but one that emphasizes gender inclusiveness across
organizational contexts and situations, creating a strong climate for
diversity and inclusion (Scott, Heathcote, & Gruman, 2011). In addition,
with more women taking part in opportunities for career development
(Knipfer et al., 2017), individuals, as well as businesses, are likely to ben-
efit from greater diversity in leadership positions (Ely et al., 2011), and
an increased sense of inclusion and belongingness (Bilimoria, Joy, &
Liang, 2008; Shore et al., 2018).
4.3 |Limitations and future research
It is important to address some limitations to our findings. First, our
data were collected in Germany and results may differ in countries
with different languages and cultural influences, especially for coun-
tries with different degrees of gender role segregation. Traditionally,
Germany has been characterized as a masculine culture: a society with
a strong division between social gender roles, and permeated by tradi-
tionally male social values such as performance and status orientation
(Hofstede, 1983). Gender egalitarianism is comparatively low
(i.e., lower 25% of 61 GLOBE countries) and effective leaders in Ger-
many are characterized predominantly by stereotypically male charac-
teristics (e.g., high-performance orientation; Brodbeck, Frese, &
Javidan, 2002). While some research suggests that findings could be
similar in Anglo-American cultures like the United States and more
gender-egalitarian cultures like the Netherlands (Gaucher et al., 2011;
Taris & Bok, 1998), we recommend for future studies to replicate our
findings in different cultural contexts. In addition, our findings are spe-
cific to career opportunities in the form of career development pro-
grams and future research should replicate them to see if they are
generalizable to other career paths or occupations. Second, our stud-
ies only looked at either stereotypically masculine or feminine word-
ing in advertisements. Future research should focus on the combined
effects of stereotypically masculine and feminine wording in adver-
tisements. Possibly a small number of feminine words in addition to
masculine words are sufficient to buffer negative effects on women's
evaluations and application intentions. Third, we solely focused on
wording and recruiter gender as recruitment signals. Male and female
applicants may also evaluate other aspects of advertisements differ-
ently, which may interact with wording or recruiter gender. For
instance, future research could address the effects of pictures
(Bosak & Sczesny, 2008), affirmative action statements (Heilman, Bat-
tle, Keller, & Lee, 1998), quotas (Shaughnessy, Braun, Hentschel, &
Peus, 2016), corporate social responsibility and performance
(Albinger & Freeman, 2000), or information regarding diversity man-
agement practices (Rabl & Triana, 2014) or the organizational culture
on work-life balance, childcare opportunities, and the like (Casper &
Buffardi, 2004). Future research could also focus on the influence of
advertisement wording and other characteristics on leader selection,
evaluation, and explanatory processes (Hentschel, Braun, Peus, &
Frey, 2018; Horvath & Sczesny, 2016; van Esch, Hopkins, O'Neil, &
Bilimoria, 2018). Fourth, we employed the traditional binary gender
system for this research, but we are aware that there are other gen-
ders that were not included (Morgenroth & Ryan, 2018). Future
research on advertisements could investigate how other genders are
affected by gendered advertisement characteristics. Studies could also
focus on how advertisements influence other applicant groups such
as people of different ethnicities (Avery, 2003) and their intersections
with gender. Finally, it is important to stress the point that, with the
use of an experimental approach, we detected mean differences,
which are not generalizable to every single woman or every
single man.
16 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
5|CONCLUSION
We investigated how organizations can address the ethical challenge
of gender equality through recruitment efforts directed at women.
There is limited research focusing on different recruitment character-
istics combined, although such integrative perspectives are of particu-
lar value in recruitment research. Investigating stereotypically
masculine and stereotypically feminine wording jointly with recruiter
gender shows that especially younger women do not only take linguis-
tic but also visual signals into account when making career-related
evaluations. This research advances conceptual theory (Steinert &
Lipski, 2018) and demonstrates the strategic HR actions organizations
can take to increase and enable women's pursuit of career opportuni-
ties, by increasing their sense of belonging in a historically male
domain.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We thank the Research and Science Management Group at Technical
University of Munich, Germany, for their feedback and support.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCID
Tanja Hentschel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3037-1107
Susanne Braun https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8510-5914
Claudia Peus https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4322-8999
ENDNOTES
1
Although many organizations use business case arguments as a reason
to increase gender diversity, the scientific evidence for a causal link
between women in leadership and company performance is not fully
conclusive (Adams, 2016). The strength (and direction) of this link varies
between studies (e.g., Campbell & Mínguez-Vera, 2008; Miller & Triana,
2009; Shrader, Blackburn, & Iles, 1997) and seems to depend on contex-
tual factors (Schwab, Werbel, Hofmann, & Henriques, 2015; Triana,
Miller, & Trzebiatowski, 2014; Yang & Triana, 2017).
2
The purpose of many career development programs is to qualify stu-
dents or employees for future leadership careers through extracurricular
development activities like leadership skills workshops and networking
events. Participation appears to enhance career success: 50% of alumni
of a big German career development program organization versus 29%
of other university graduates in Germany hold leadership positions a few
years after graduation (Frey, Gietl, Fischer, & Köppl, 2010; Grotheer,
Isleib, Netz, & Briedis, 2011).
3
Towards the end of Study 2, we added three questions to investigate
whether career development programs are perceived as traditionally
male or female. Specifically, participants were asked if they would gener-
ally perceive career development programs as more of a male or more of
a female domain with three specific bipolar items (α= .84): “1 = In gen-
eral, career development programs are more of a male domain”to “7=
In general, career development programs are more of a female domain”;
“1 = In general, more men participate in career development programs”
to “7 = In general, more women participate in career development pro-
grams”;“1 = In general, career development programs are more likely to
be designed for men”to “7 = In general, career development programs
are more likely to be designed for women”. Results of a one sample t-
test with a test value of 4 (scale midpoint indicating no gender
traditionality) showed that career development programs (M= 3.14, SD
= 1.01) were perceived as traditionally male, t(544) = -19.93, p< .001.
4
Note that all of these findings are differences between the groups of
men and women in general and inferences about individual men and
women are not valid.
5
A power analysis using g*power (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009)
estimated a total sample size of 128 women for a medium effect size (f =
.25) and 80% power.
6
We also pre-tested valence perceptions of stereotypically feminine and
stereotypically masculine advertisements because career development
programs advertised in stereotypically feminine compared to stereotypi-
cally masculine wording might be perceived as more positive: We col-
lected data from 20 male and 20 female students (M
Age
= 22.32; SD
Age
= 3.25). Video scripts were transformed into written advertisements and
students rated either a stereotypically feminine or stereotypically mascu-
line version. Specifically, students were asked to indicate their evaluation
of (1) the advertisement, (2) the program, and (3) the program organiza-
tion on a scale from -3 “very negative”to 3 “very positive”. Both female
and male students evaluated the program organization that advertised in
stereotypically masculine (M= 1.35, SD = 1.04) as compared to stereo-
typically feminine (M= 1.65, SD = 1.09) wording not significantly differ-
ent with regard to valence, t(38) = -.891, p= .379. However, results
differed by student gender for evaluations of the advertisement and the
program. Female students did not significantly differ in their perception
of valence of the stereotypically masculine (M= 1.50, SD = .97) versus
stereotypically feminine (M= 2.00, SD = .94) advertisement, t(18) =
-1.17, p= .258, nor of the program advertised in stereotypically mascu-
line (M= 2.00, SD = .67) versus stereotypically feminine (M= 2.30, SD =
.82) wording, t(18) = -.896, p= .382. However, unexpectedly, male stu-
dents evaluated the stereotypically feminine advertisement (M= 2.10,
SD = .74) significantly more positive than the stereotypically masculine
advertisement (M= .70, SD = 1.34), t(18) = -2.90, p= .010; and they
evaluated the program advertised in stereotypically feminine (M= 2.40,
SD = .52) versus stereotypically masculine (M= 1.50, SD = 1.08) wording
more positively, t(18) = -2.38, p= .029.
7
In the very end of the survey, we also measured gender identity using
the German version (Troche & Rammsayer, 2011) of the Bem Sex Role
Inventory (BSRI; Bem, 1974) and asked participants to describe themselves
on a list of 30 gender-stereotyped characteristics. Sample items of the mas-
culine scale are “dominant”and “willing to take risks”(α
Women
= .86); sample
items of the feminine scale are “affectionate”and “sensitive”(α
Women
=.81).
If masculine and feminine gender identity scales are added as additional
covariates to the ANCOVAs, the interaction effects of wording and
recruiter gender for belongingness, F(1, 152) = 2.46, p=.119, η
p2
= .02,
expected success, F(1, 152) = .94, p=.335, η
p2
= .01, and application inten-
tions, F(1, 151) = 2.69, p=.103, η
p2
= .02, do not reach significance.
8
A power analysis using g*power (Faul et al., 2009) estimated a total sam-
ple size of 259 women for an effect size of f = .175 (calculated from the
interaction effect in Study 1, η
p2
= .03) and 80% power.
9
One participant indicated “other”gender and on a question about
whether they filled out the questionnaire honestly three participants did
not indicate honesty and were not included in the analyses.
10
If masculine (α
Women
= .93) and feminine (α
Women
= .88) gender identity
(BSRI, Bem 1974; Troche & Rammsayer, 2011) are included as addi-
tional covariates, the significance levels of the main and interaction
effects do not change.
11
Note that this cutoff does not only denominate a lifespan difference
but also a generational difference between Millennials (born after
1980) and older generations. Thus, results may be due to either lifespan
development or generational differences (for a discussion see: Rudolph,
Rauvola, & Zacher, 2018).
HENTSCHEL ET AL.17
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E., & Bruckmüller, S. (2011). The bigger one of the “Big Two”?
Preferential processing of communal information. Journal of Experimen-
tal Social Psychology,47(5), 935–948.
Adams, R. B. (2016). Women on boards: The superheroes of tomorrow?
The Leadership Quarterly,27(3), 371–386.
Aguinis, H., & Bradley, K. J. (2014). Best practice recommendations for
designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology stud-
ies. Organizational Research Methods,17(4), 351–371.
Albinger, H. S., & Freeman, S. J. (2000). Corporate social performance and
attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations.
Journal of Business Ethics,28(3), 243–253.
Allen, D. G., Van Scotter, J. R., & Otondo, R. F. (2004). Recruitment com-
munication media: Impact on pre-hire outcomes. Personnel Psychology,
57(1), 143–171.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organiza-
tion. Academy of Management Review,14(1), 20–39.
Ashforth, B. E., & Schinoff, B. S. (2016). Identity under construction: How
individuals come to define themselves in organizations. Annual Review
of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,3(1), 111–137.
Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising—Are
differences black and white? Journal of Applied Psychology,88(4),
672–679.
Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target Practice: An organizational
impression management approach to attracting minority and female
job applicants. Personnel Psychology,59(1), 157–187.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review,84(2), 191–215.
Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job postings and the decision to
interview: A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,78
(5), 845–856.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for
interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psy-
chological Bulletin,117(3), 497–529.
Bear, S., Rahman, N., & Post, C. (2010). The impact of board diversity and
gender composition on corporate social responsibility and firm reputa-
tion. Journal of Business Ethics,97(2), 207–221.
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology,42(2), 155–162.
Bem, S. L., & Bem, D. J. (1973). Does sex-biased job advertising ‘aid and
abet’sex discrimination? Journal of Applied Social Psychology,3(1), 6–18.
Bilimoria, D., Joy, S., & Liang, X. (2008). Breaking barriers and creating
inclusiveness: Lessons of organizational transformation to advance
women faculty in academic science and engineering. Human Resource
Management,47(3), 423–441.
Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of
women and men to a leadership position. Sex Roles,58(9-10), 682–688.
Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance
linkages: The role of the “strength”of the HRM system. Academy of
Management Review,29(2), 203–221.
Breaugh, J. A. (2012). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and sug-
gestions for future research. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook
of Personnel Assessment and Selection (pp. 68–87). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Breaugh, J. A. (2013). Employee recruitment. Annual Review of Psychology,
64(1), 389–416.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So
many studies, so many remaining questions. Journal of Management,
26(3), 405–434.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in
job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management,20(3),
531–551.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of collec-
tive identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,71(1), 83–93.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written
materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-
cultural psychology: Vol. 2. Methodology (pp. 137–164). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Brodbeck, F. C., Frese, M., & Javidan, M. (2002). Leadership made in Ger-
many: Low on compassion, high on performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Perspectives,16(1), 16–29.
Brue, K. L., & Brue, S. A. (2016). Experiences and outcomes of a women's
leadership development program: A phenomenological investigation.
Journal of Leadership Education,15(3), 75–97.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice
decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,67(3), 294–311.
Caleo, S., & Heilman, M. E. (2019). What could go wrong? Some
unintended consequences of gender bias interventions. Archives of Sci-
entific Psychology,7(1), 71–80.
Campbell, K., & Mínguez-Vera, A. (2008). Gender diversity in the board-
room and firm financial performance. Journal of Business Ethics,83(3),
435–451.
Casper, W. J., & Buffardi, L. C. (2004). Work-life benefits and job pursuit
intentions: The role of anticipated organizational support. Journal of
Vocational Behavior,65(3), 391–410.
Casper, W. J., Wayne, J. H., & Manegold, J. G. (2013). Who will we recruit?
Targeting deep- and surface-level diversity with human resource pol-
icy advertising. Human Resource Management,52(3), 311–332.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., &
Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job
choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting out-
comes. Journal of Applied Psychology,90(5), 928–944.
Chrobot-Mason, D., Hoobler, J. M., & Burno, J. (2018). Lean In versus the
literature: An evidence-based examination. Academy of Management
Perspectives,33(1), 110–130.
Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling
theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management,37(1),
39–67.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2011). Leadership change and shareholder value:
How markets react to the appointments of women. Human Resource
Management,50(4), 501–519.
Crush, P. (2015). Recruitment advertising: Making diversity your message.
Personnel Today. Retrieved from https://www.personneltoday.com/
hr/recruitment-advertising-making-diversity-message.
Davidson, M. J., & Burke, R. J. (2016). Women in management worldwide:
Progress and prospects. Farnham, UK: Grower Publishing.
Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: An outcome-
oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,2(1), 133–156.
Deaux, K., & LaFrance, M. (1998). Gender. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, G.
Lindzey, D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of
social psychology (pp. 788–827). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Devendorf, S. A., & Highhouse, S. (2008). Applicant-employee similarity
and attraction to an employer. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology,81(4), 607–617.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Why diversity programs fail. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Review Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2016/07/
why-diversity-programs-fail
Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The
varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American
Sociological Review,80(5), 1014–1044.
Donnelly, K., & Twenge, J. M. (2017). Masculine and feminine traits on the
Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a cross-temporal meta-analysis.
Sex Roles,76(9), 556–565.
Dychtwald, K., Erickson, T. J., & Morison, R. (2013). Workforce crisis: How
to beat the coming shortage of skills and talent. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
18 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
Eagly, A. H. (2005). Achieving relational authenticity in leadership: Does
gender matter? The Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 459–474.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review,109(3), 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1989). Gender stereotypes and attitudes toward
women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,15(4), 543–558.
Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020).
Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of
U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist,
75(3), 301–315.
Ellemers, N., & Rink, F. (2016). Diversity in work groups. Current Opinion in
Psychology,11,49–53.
Ellemers, N., Rink, F., Derks, B., & Ryan, M. K. (2012). Women in high
places: When and why promoting women into top positions can harm
them individually or as a group (and how to prevent this). Research in
Organizational Behavior,32, 163–187.
Elprana, G., Stiehl, S., Gatzka, M., & Felfe, J. (2012). Gender differences in
motivation to lead in Germany. In C. Quaiser-Pohl & M. Endepohls-
Ulpe (Eds.), Women's choices in Europe—Influence of gender on educa-
tion, occupational career and family development (pp. 135–150).
Münster, New York: Waxmann.
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M. (2011). Taking gender into account: The-
ory and design for women's leadership development programs. Acad-
emy of Management Learning & Education,10(3), 474–493.
Fagot, B. I., Hagan, R., Leinbach, M. D., & Kronsberg, S. (1985). Differential
reactions to assertive and communicative acts of toddler boys and
girls. Child Development,56(6), 1499–1505.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power
analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression ana-
lyses. Behavior Research Methods,41(4), 1149–1160.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often
mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively fol-
low from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,82(6), 878–902.
Frey, D., Gietl, R., Fischer, P., & Köppl, J. (2010). Statistische Auswertung
der Alumni-Befragung anlässlich des 10-jährigen Bestehens der
Bayerischen EliteAkademie [Statistical analysis of the Alumni survey
on the occasion of the 10 year anniversary of the Bayerische
EliteAkademie].
Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered word-
ing in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,101(1), 109–128.
Gibson, D. E. (2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model
construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science,
14(5), 591–610.
Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., &
Burke, W. W. (2017). Women and leadership: Selection, development,
leadership sttyle, and performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science,53(1), 32–65.
Gloor, J. L., Morf, M., Paustian-Underdahl, S., & Backes-Gellner, U. (2020).
Fix the game, not the dame: Restoring equity in leadership evaluations.
Journal of Business Ethics,164, 497–511.
Goltz, S. M., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1995). Recruiter friendliness and
attraction to the job: The mediating role of inferences about the orga-
nization. Journal of Vocational Behavior,46(1), 109–118.
Good, L. R., & Good, K. C. (1974). Similarity of attitudes and attraction to a
social organization. Psychological Reports,34(3_suppl), 1071–1073.
Grotheer, M., Isleib, S., Netz, N., & Briedis, K. (2011). Hochqualifiziert und
gefragt. Ergebnisse der zweiten HIS-HF Absolventenbefragung des
Jahrgangs 2005 [Highly qualified and in demand. Results of the second
HIS-HF alumni survey of the class of 2005]. Retrieved from http://
www.dzhw.eu/pdf/pub_fh/fh-201214.pdf.
Guillén, L., Mayo, M., & Korotov, K. (2015). Is leadership a part of me? A
leader identity approach to understanding the motivation to lead. The
Leadership Quarterly,26(5), 802–820.
Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-chang-
ing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes,
1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly,40(3), 353–363.
Harris, M. M., & Fink, L. S. (1987). A field study of applicant reactions to
employment opportunities: Does the recruiter make a difference? Per-
sonnel Psychology,40(4), 765–784.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS. Retrieved
from www.processmacro.org/download.html.
Haynes, A. F., & Heilman, M. E. (2013). It had to be you (not me)!: Women's
attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful joint work
outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,39(7), 956–969.
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of Fit model.
Research in Organizational Behavior,5, 269–298.
Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereo-
types prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of
Social Issues,57(4), 657–674.
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in
Organizational Behavior,32, 113–135.
Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. A. (1998). Type of affir-
mative action policy: A determinant of reactions to sex-based prefer-
ential selection? Journal of Applied Psychology,83, 190–205.
Heilman, M. E., & Caleo, S. (2018). Combatting gender discrimination: A lack
of fit framework. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,21(5), 725–744.
Heilman, M. E., Manzi, F., & Braun, S. (2015). Presumed incompetent: Per-
ceived lack of fit and gender bias in recruitment and selection. In A. M.
Broadbridge & S. L. Fielden (Eds.), Handbook of gendered careers in
management: Getting in, getting on, getting out (pp. 90–104). Chelten-
ham: Edward Elgar.
Hentschel, T., Braun, S., Peus, C., & Frey, D. (2018). The communality-
bonus effect for male transformational leaders—Leadership style, gen-
der, and promotability. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology,27(1), 112–125.
Hentschel, T., Heilman, M. E., & Peus, C. (2019). The multiple dimensions
of gender stereotypes –A current look at men's and women's charac-
terizations of others and themselves. Frontiers in Psychology,10(11).
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00011.
Hentschel, T., & Horvath, L. K. (2015). Passende Talente ansprechen—
Rekrutierung und Gestaltung von Stellenanzeigen [Reaching fitting
candidates—Recruitment and design of job advertisements. In C. Peus,
S. Braun, T. Hentschel, & D. Frey (Eds.), Personalauswahl in der
Wissenschaft—Evidenzbasierte Methoden und Impulse für die Praxis [Per-
sonnel selection in academia—evidence-based methods and impulses
for practitioners (pp. 65–82). Heidelberg: Springer.
Hentschel, T., Horvath, L. K., Peus, C., & Sczesny, S. (2018). Kick-starting
female careers—Attracting women to entrepreneurship programs.
Journal of Personnel Psychology,17(4), 193–203.
Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. (2007). Social-identity func-
tions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes,103(1), 134–146.
Hite, L. M., & McDonald, K. S. (2003). Career aspirations of non-managerial
women: Adjustment and adaptation. Journal of Career Development,29
(4), 221–235.
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and
theories. Journal of International Business Studies,14(2), 75–89.
Horvath, L. K. (2015). Gender-fair language in the context of recruiting
and evaluating leaders. In I. M. Welpe, P. Brosi, L. Ritzenhöfer, & T.
Schwarzmüller (Eds.), Auswahl und Beurteilung von Frauen und Männern
als Führungskräfte in der Wirtschaft—Herausforderungen, Chancen und
Lösungen (pp. 263–272). Freiburg, Germany: Haufe.
Horvath, L. K., & Sczesny, S. (2016). Reducing women's lack of fit with
leadership positions? Effects of the wording of job advertisements.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,25(2),
316–328.
HENTSCHEL ET AL.19
Hoyt, C. L., & Murphy, S. E. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype
threat, women, and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,27(3),
387–399.
Kanter,R.M.(1977).Men and women of the corporation. New York:
Basic.
King, E. B., Hebl, M. R., George, J. M., & Matusik, S. F. (2010). Under-
standing tokenism: Antecedents and consequences of a psychologi-
cal climate of gender inequity. Journal of Management,36(2),
482–510.
Knipfer, K., Shaughnessy, B. A., Hentschel, T., & Schmid, E. (2017).
Unlocking women's leadership potential: A curricular example for
developing female leaders in academia. Journal of Management Educa-
tion,41(2), 272–302.
Koenig, A. M., Mitchell, A. A., Eagly, A. H., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader
stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms.
Psychological Bulletin,137(4), 616–642.
Kossek, E. E., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2018). Women's career equality and lead-
ership in organizations: Creating an evidence-based positive change.
Human Resource Management,57(4), 813–822.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011).
Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for develop-
ment: The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology,96(3), 485–500.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychol-
ogy,49(1), 1–49.
Larsen, D. A., & Phillips, J. I. (2002). Effect of recruiter on attraction to the
firm: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Busi-
ness and Psychology,16(3), 347–364.
Lenney, E. (1977). Women's self-confidence in achievement settings. Psy-
chological Bulletin,84(1), 1–13.
Leslie, L. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory
of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review,44(3),
538–563.
Liden, R. C., & Parsons, C. K. (1986). A field study of job applicant inter-
view perceptions, alternative opportunities, and demographic charac-
teristics. Personnel Psychology,39(1), 109–122.
Linehan, M. (2001). Networking for female managers’career development:
Empirical evidence. Journal of Management Development,20(10),
823–829.
Linos, E. (2018). Simple changes to job ads can help recruit more police offi-
cers of color. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Retrieved from
https://hbr.org/2018/04/simple-changes-to-job-ads-can-help-recruit-
more-police-officers-of-color
London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of
Management Review,8(4), 620–630.
Madsen, S. R., & Andrade, M. S. (2018). Unconscious gender bias: Implica-
tions for women's leadership development. Journal of Leadership Stud-
ies,12(1), 62–67.
Manzi, F. (2019). Are the processes underlying discrimination the same for
women and men? A critical review of congruity models of gender dis-
crimination. Frontiers in Psychology,10(469). https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.00469.
Martin, C. L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children's search for gender cues: Cogni-
tive perspectives on gender development. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science,13(2), 67–70.
Mayer, D., & Cava, A. (1993). Ethics and the gender equality dilemma for
U.S. multinationals. Journal of Business Ethics,12(9), 701–708.
Miller, T., & Triana, M. d. C. (2009). Demographic diversity in the board-
room: Mediators of the board diversity–firm performance relationship.
Journal of Management Studies,46(5), 755–786.
Montoya, R. M., & Horton, R. S. (2012). A meta-analytic investigation of
the processes underlying the similarity-attraction effect. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships,30(1), 64–94.
Morgan, C., Isaac, J., & Sansone, C. (2001). The role of interest in under-
standing the career choices of female and male college students. Sex
Roles,44(5-6), 295–320.
Morgenroth, T., & Ryan, M. K. (2018). Gender trouble in social psychology:
How can Butler's work inform experimental social psychologists’con-
ceptualization of gender? Frontiers in Psychology,9(1320). https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01320.
Nauta, M. M., Epperson, D. L., & Kahn, J. H. (1998). A multiple-groups
analysis of predictors of higher level career aspirations among women
in mathematics, science, and engineering majors. Journal of Counseling
Psychology,45(4), 483–496.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors
of objective and subjective career success. A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology,58(2), 367–408.
Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2008). The relationship of age to ten
dimensions of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,93(2),
392–423.
Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., Walker, L. S., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Gender
and perceptions of leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis of
contextual moderators. Journal of Applied Psychology,99(6),
1129–1145.
Peters, K., Ryan, M., Haslam, S. A., & Fernandes, H. (2012). To belong or
not to belong: Evidence that women's occupational disidentification is
promoted by lack of fit with masculine occupational prototypes. Jour-
nal of Personnel Psychology,11(3), 148–158.
Phillips, S. D., & Imhoff, A. R. (1997). Women and career development: A
decade of research. Annual Review of Psychology,48,31–59.
Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges
and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management,32(6),
868–897.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2003). Gender, gender identity, and
aspirations to top management. Women in Management Review,18
(1/2), 88–96.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (2015). Correspondence between
self- and good-manager descriptions: examining stability and
change over four decades. Journal of Management,41(6),
1745–1773.
Rabl, T., & Triana, M. d. C. (2014). Organizational value for age diversity
and potential applicants’organizational attraction: Individual attitudes
matter. Journal of Business Ethics,121(3), 403–417.
Riggs, M. L., Warka, J., Babasa, B., Betancourt, R., & Hooker, S. (1994).
Development and validation of self-efficacy and outcome expectancy
scales for job-related applications. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement,54(3), 793–802.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). If you're looking at the cell means,
you're not looking at only the interaction (unless all main effects are
zero). Psychological Bulletin,110(03), 574–576.
Ruble, D. N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). Gender development. In W. Damon &
N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3. Social, emo-
tional, and personality development, 5th ed., pp. 933–1016). Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Rudolph, C. W., Rauvola, R. S., & Zacher, H. (2018). Leadership and gener-
ations at work: A critical review. The Leadership Quarterly,29(1),
44–57.
Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Kriska, S. D. (2000). Applicant
self-selection: Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process.
Journal of Applied Psychology,85(2), 163–179.
Ryan, L. (2013). Your job ads are driving away talent. Cambridge, MA: Har-
vard Business Review Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2013/02/your-
job-ads-are-driving-talen
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences:
A call for new research directions. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 399–444). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
20 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of recruit-
ment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology,
44(3), 487–521.
Saks, A. M., Leck, J. D., & Saunders, D. M. (1995). Effects of application
blanks and employment equity on applicant reactions and job pursuit
intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,16(5), 415–430. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.4030160504
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women's
progress in management. Journal of Social Issues,57(4), 675–688.
Schneider, M. R., & Bauhoff, F. (2013). Stellenanzeigen und AGG: Von
Geschlechtsneutralität noch weit entfernt [Job advertisements and
the General Equal Treatment Act: Far away from gender neutrality].
Personal Quarterly,3,15–20.
Schuh, S. C., Hernandez Bark, A. S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R.,
Frieg, P., & Dick, R. (2013). Gender differences in leadership role occu-
pancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business
Ethics,120(3), 1–17.
Schwab, A., Werbel, J. D., Hofmann, H., & Henriques, P. L. (2015). Managerial
gender diversity and firm performance: An integration of different theo-
retical perspectives. Group & Organization Management,41(1), 5–31.
Scott, K. A., Heathcote, J. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2011). The diverse organi-
zation: Finding gold at the end of the rainbow. Human Resource Man-
agement,50(6), 735–755.
Shaughnessy, B., Braun, S., Hentschel, T., & Peus, C. (2016). Diverse
and just? The role of quota-based selection policies on organiza-
tional outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology,46(7),
880–890.
Shore, L. M., Cleveland, J. N., & Sanchez, D. (2018). Inclusive workplaces:
A review and model. Human Resource Management Review,28(2),
176–189.
Shrader, C. B., Blackburn, V. B., & Iles, P. (1997). Women in management
and firm financial performance: an exploratory study. Journal of Mana-
gerial Issues,9(3), 355–372.
Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits,
trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes: What do they signify? Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly,24(1), 44–62.
Steinert, S., & Lipski, J. (2018). Who is afraid of commitment? On the rela-
tion of scientific evidence and conceptual theory. Erkenntnis,83(3),
477–500.
Stout, J. G., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). When He doesn't mean You: Gender-
exclusive language as ostracism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-
tin,37(6), 757–769.
Taris, T. W., & Bok, I. A. (1998). On gender specificity of person
characteristics in personnel advertisements: A study among future
applicants. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied,132
(6), 593–610.
Taylor, M. S., & Bergmann, T. J. (1987). Organizational recruitment activi-
ties and applicants' reactions at different stages of the recruitment
process. Personnel Psychology,40(2), 261–285.
Tellhed, U., Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2017). Will I fit in and do well?
The importance of social belongingness and self-efficacy for explaining
gender differences in interest in STEM and HEED majors. Sex Roles,77
(1), 86–96.
Thaler-Carter, R. E. (2001). Diversify your recruitment advertising—More
companies are adding a diversity element to their recruitment ads. HR
MAGAZINE,46(6), 92–101.
Triana, M. d. C., Miller, T. L., & Trzebiatowski, T. M. (2014). The double-
edged nature of board gender diversity: Diversity, firm performance,
and the power of women directors as predictors of strategic change.
Organization Science,25(2), 609–632.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational
demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science
Quarterly,37(4), 549–579.
Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant attrac-
tion to firms: Influences of organization reputation, job and
organizational attributes, and recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational
Behavior,52(1), 24–44.
Twenge, J. M., Campbell, W. K., & Gentile, B. (2012). Generational
increases in agentic self-evaluations among American college students,
1966–2009. Self and Identity,11(4), 409–427.
van Dijk, H., Kooij, D., Karanika-Murray, M., De Vos, A., & Meyer, B.
(2020). Meritocracy a myth? A multilevel perspective of how social
inequality accumulates through work. Organizational Psychology
Review,10(3-4), 240–269.
van Esch, C., Hopkins, M. M., O'Neil, D. A., & Bilimoria, D. (2018).
How perceived riskiness influence s the selection of women and
men as senior leaders. Human Resource Management,57(4),
915–930.
Vinnicombe, S., & Singh, V. (2002). Women-only management training: An
essential part of women's leadership development. Journal of Change
Management,3(4), 294–306.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford, UK: Wiley.
Walker, H. J., & Hinojosa, A. S. (2013). Recruitment: The role of job adver-
tisements. In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Recruitment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention
improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science,
331(6023), 1447–1451.
Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psy-
chological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
25(9), 1115–1125.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior
of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences. Psy-
chological Bulletin,128(5), 699–727.
Yang, T., & Triana, M. d. C. (2017). Set up to fail: Explaining when women-
led businesses are more likely to fail. Journal of Management,45(3),
926–954.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
TANJA HENTSCHEL is a Assistant Professor of
HRM and Organizational Behavior at the Uni-
versity of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business
School, The Netherlands. She received her
PhD in 2017 from the Technical University of
Munich, Germany. In her research and as a
freelance trainer in business and academic
organizations she focuses on recruitment, selection, diversity, and
stereotyping in organizations. Her work has been published in
international journals like the European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Journal of Personnel Psychology,
Journal of Management Education, Small Group Research, Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, and European Journal of Social
Psychology.
SUSANNE BRAUN is a Professor in Leadership at
Durham University Business School, United
Kingdom. She received her PhD in 2011 in
Psychology from Ludwig Maximilian Univer-
sity Munich, Germany. She held visiting
scholarships at New York University and the
University of California in Berkeley before
joining Durham University Business School in 2015. Her research
HENTSCHEL ET AL.21
focuses primarily on leadership (bright and dark sides) and gender
diversity. She has published articles in outlets such as Organiza-
tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, The Leadership
Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, and the European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, and the quality of this work
has been internationally recognized (Emerald Citation of Excel-
lence 2016, Highly Cited Research Award of The Leadership
Quarterly 2016).
CLAUDIA PEUS is a Professor of Research and
Science Management at the Technical Uni-
versity of Munich, TUM School of Manage-
ment, Germany. She is also Senior Vice
President Talent Management & Diversity
and Vice Dean of Executive Education at the
TUM School of Management. She was a Vis-
iting Scholar at the Sloan School of Management (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) and a Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard
University. In her research, she focuses on (international) HR man-
agement, effective leadership, and leadership development, as
well as research and science management. Her work has been
published in well-known outlets such as Journal of Management,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, The Leadership Quarterly, and
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
DIETER FREY is Head of the Center for Leader-
ship and People Management, Munich, and
Professor Emeritus of Social Psychology at
Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Ger-
many. He is both a researcher and trainer/
consultant in organizations, and investigates
and applies the topics of diversity, leadership,
motivation, and innovation. He is a member of the Bavarian Acad-
emy of the Sciences and has published in a multitude of academic
journals in psychology and management such as Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology, The Leadership
Quarterly, Psychological Bulletin, Journal of Business Ethics,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, and
Journal of Applied Psychology.
How to cite this article: Hentschel T, Braun S, Peus C, Frey D.
Sounds like a fit! Wording in recruitment advertisements and
recruiter gender affect women's pursuit of career
development programs via anticipated belongingness. Hum
Resour Manage. 2020;1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.
22043
22 HENTSCHEL ET AL.
