CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,003Gender Diversity and InequalityCoaching Methods and ImpactLeadership and Management in Organizations

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 137 of the 138 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Taking Gender Into Account: Theory and Design for Women's Leadership Development Programs

Ely, Robin J., Ibarra, Herminia, Kolb, Deborah M.·2011·Academy of Management Learning & Education
DOI 10.5465/amle.2010.0046
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We conceptualize leadership development as identity work and show how subtle forms of gender bias in the culture and in organizations interfere with the identity work of women leaders. Based on this insight, we revisit traditional approaches to standard leadership topics, such as negotiations and leading change, as well as currently popular developmental tools, such as 360-degree feedback and networking; reinterpret them through the lens of women's experiences in organizations; and revise them to meet the particular challenges women face when transitioning into senior leadership. By framing leadership development as identity work, we reveal the gender dynamics involved in becoming a leader, offer a theoretical rationale for teaching leadership in women-only groups, and suggest design and delivery principles to increase the likelihood that women's leadership programs will help women advance into more senior leadership roles.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5465/amle.2010.0046

Cites

137 of 137 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 138 references

1 of the 138 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. Baumeister R. F., 1995, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497, 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Belkin L., 2003, New York Times Magazine, 26, 42
  3. Bohnet I., 2007, Negotiation, 10, 4
  4. Bowles H. R., 2010, Paper Presented at The Annual Meeting of the International Association of Conflict Management Conference
  5. Bruckmüller S., 2011, Harvard Business Review, 89, 26
  6. Calás M. B., 2009, Handbook of organizational research methods, 246
  7. Cochran C., 1999, Gender influences on the process and outcomes of rating performance
  8. Cuddy A., 2009, Harvard Business Review, 87, 23
  9. Ely R. J., 2006, Harvard Business Review, 84, 79
  10. Frankel L. P., 2004, Nice girls don't get the corner office: 101 unconscious mistakes women make that sabotage their careers
  11. Groysberg B., 2008, Harvard Business Review, 86, 74
  12. Ibarra H., 1996, Network assessment exercise: Executive version
  13. Ibarra H., 2010, Harvard Business Review, 88, 80
  14. Ibarra H., 2007, Harvard Business Review, 85, 40
  15. Ibarra H., 2007, Vivienne Cox at BP Alternative Energy
  16. Ibarra H., 2009, Harvard Business Review, 87, 62
  17. Ibarra H., 2010, Handbook of leadership theory and practice, 657
  18. Kabacoff R., 2000, Gender and leadership in the corporate boardroom
  19. Kolb D. M., 2009, Paper presented at the Academy of Management
  20. Kolb D. M., 1997, Frontiers in dispute resolution in industrial relations and human resources, 231
  21. Kolb D.M., 2001, Harvard Business Review, 79, 88
  22. Kotter J. P., 2007, Harvard Business Review, 85, 96
  23. Merrill-Sands D., 2001, CGO Insights, #9
  24. Meyerson D. E., 2000, Harvard Business Review, 78, 126
  25. Morriss A., 2011, Harvard Business Review, 89, 160
  26. Movius H., 2009, Built to win: Creating a world-class negotiating organization
  27. Perrault M. R., 1996, Gender differences at work: Are men and women really that different?
  28. Petriglieri G., 2010, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 44
  29. Quinn R. E., 2006, Inspiring leaders, 67
  30. Valian V., 1998, The advancement of women
  31. Zahidi S., 2010, The corporate gender gap report

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ely, R. J., Ibarra, H., & Kolb, D. M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • INSEAD (FR)
  • Simmons University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Publisher
Academy of Management
Published
2011-09
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
474-493
ISSN
  • 1537-260X (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-9585
DOI
10.5465/amle.2010.0046
OpenAlex
W2035844300
Cited by
1,003
References
138
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 89 · 2024: 92 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 68 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 60 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 13
FWCI
64.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Academy of Management Learning and Education (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Coaching Methods and Impact
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Leadership and Management in Organizations
Keywords
women in leadership, leadership development programs, identity work, gender bias, gender dynamics, negotiation, leading change, 360-degree feedback, networking, program design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review