| dc.description.abstract | Despite growing efforts to tackle gender inequality, discrepancies between men and women remain commonplace in the workplace. This experimental study examined how executives’ behaviour (status quo legitimising vs. status quo challenging), combined with executive gender, affect junior men’s perceived effectiveness of gender diversity initiatives. Drawing on theories of leadership communication, Queen Bee/Alpha Male behaviour, and diversity engagement, an interaction effect was hypothesised. In this interaction, status quo challenging behaviour, typified by acknowledging systemic barriers and advocating for structural change, would lead to heightened scores for perceived effectiveness of diversity initiatives, particularly with male executives. Status quo legitimising behaviour, typified by implying the current system is fair and change is unnecessary, would instead lead to diminished scores, particularly with female executives. A 2 (executive behaviour: status quo legitimising vs. status quo challenging) x 2 (executive gender: male vs. female) between-subjects design was employed with 134 junior men. Participants read an article with an executive opinion (manipulating behaviour and gender of the executive), and rated diversity initiative effectiveness (initiatives focusing on fix-the-system and fix-the-women). Executive behaviour and gender did not influence perceived effectiveness for either intervention type, challenging assumptions that leadership messaging sways employee judgment. Findings suggest that junior men may not process executive messaging and gender systematically, relying on simple cues and peripheral processing instead. Methodological limitations, such as manipulation strength and sample size, are noted, but results highlight the need for compelling communication, active involvement of junior men, and explicit systemic framing of gender diversity initiatives. | |
