Exploring the effective leadership among women in light of the «Queen Bee Phenomenon»

Manuscript (ελληνικά)
Published: Feb 18, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.38240
Keywords:
effective leadership, implicit leadership theories, Queen Bee Phenomenon, female leadership, gender stereotypes
Eleni Kalikaki
Department of Psychology, University of Crete
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8941-2224
Nikoleta Kolovou
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0291-1654
Leonidas Zampetakis
Department of Psychology, University of Crete
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9568-6302
Abstract

Leadership, as a complex issue, involves implicit cognitive schemas that shape subordinates’ perceptions of leader effectiveness. The “Queen Bee Phenomenon” represents a strategy for women's advancement in male-dominated environments by adopting three behavioral patterns: distancing from younger women, assimilating into the dominant group, and legitimizing the existing organizational status quo. The aim of the present study is to investigate which of these three dimensions is perceived by female employees as the most significant in determining their supervisor’s leadership effectiveness. A within-subjects research design was employed, utilizing the method of hypothetical scenarios in which the levels of the independent variables varied and were evaluated by 131 female employees. The results of regression analysis with robust standard errors revealed that all three dimensions—distancing, assimilation, and legitimization—have a negative and statistically significant impact on perceived leadership effectiveness. Additionally, it was found that the negative impact of distancing on leadership effectiveness decreases when legitimization is high. The study highlighted a direct association between the three behavioral patterns of the supervisor and perceived ineffective leadership. In conclusion, the findings of this research may be utilized for the potential development of preventive intervention programs, as well as for a holistic understanding of the phenomenon.

Article Details
  • Section
  • RESEARCH PAPERS
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The journal PSYCHOLOGY adopts a Platinum open-access policy. Submission, processing or publication costs are waived by the Hellenic Psychological Society. Papers published in the journal PSYCHOLOGY are licensed under a 'Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International' licence. The authors reserve the copyright of their work and grant the journal the right of its first publication. Third-party licensees are allowed to use the published paper immediately after publication as they wish, provided they retain the defined by the license copyright formalities, regarding the reference to its author(s) and its initial publication in the journal PSYCHOLOGY. Moreover, any adjusted work should be shared under the same reuse rights, so with the same CC license.

Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Alabdulhadi, A., Schyns, B., & Staudigl, L. F. (2017). Implicit leadership theory. In E. Curtis & J. Cullen (Eds.), Leadership and change for the health professional (pp. 20–36). Open University Press.
Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much or not enough: Exploring why advocacy moderates’ backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 120(1), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.006
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and leadership: An examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00030-4
Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual review of psychology, 60(1), 421-449. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
Βακόλα, Μ., & Νικολάου, Ι. (2019). Οργανωσιακή ψυχολογία & συμπεριφορά (2η εκδ.). Rosili
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. Yale University Press.
Brown, A. (2023). The implications of the queen bee phenomenon in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Culture Communications and Conflict, 27(1), 1-6.The-Implications-of-the-Queen-Bee-1939-4691-27-1-101.pdf (abacademies.org)
Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of human resources, 50(2), 317-372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
Catalyst, Inc. (2007). The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you do, doomed if you don’t. Catalyst Inc
Cortis, N., Foley, M., & Williamson, S. (2022). Change agents or defending the status quo? How senior leaders frame workplace gender equality. Gender, Work & Organization, 29(1), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12742
Day, D. V., Griffin, M. A., & Louw, K. R. (2014). The climate and culture of leadership in organizations. In B. Schneider & K. M. Barbera (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 101–117). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199860715.013.0006
Derks, B., Ellemers, N., Van Laar, C., & de Groot, K. (2011). Do sexist organizational cultures create the Queen Bee? British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 519–535. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610x525280
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., Ellemers, N., & Raghoe, G. (2015). Extending the Queen Bee effect: How hindustani workers cope with disadvantage by distancing the self from the group. Journal of Social Issues, 71(3), 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12124
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007
DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627–647. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.35.4.zok627
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42(7), 755–756. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.42.7.755
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Ellemers, N., Van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1348/0144666042037999
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2005). From ideal to real: A longitudinal study of the role of implicit leadership theories on leader-member exchanges and employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.659
Epitropaki, O., Sy, T., Martin, R., Tram-Quon, S., & Topakas, A. (2013). Implicit leadership and followership theories “in the wild”: Taking stock of information-processing approaches to leadership and followership in organizational settings. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(6), 858–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.10.005
Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., & Derks, B. (2016). Queen bees and alpha males: Are successful women more competitive than successful men? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(7), 903–913. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2198
Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., & Derks, B. (2021). The Queen Bee phenomenon in academia 15 years after: Does it still exist, and if so, why? British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12408
Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., Derks, B., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2017). Nothing changes, really: Why women who break through the glass ceiling end up reinforcing it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(5), 638–651.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217695551
Grangeiro, R. R., Gomes Neto, M. B., Silva, L. E. N., & Esnard, C. (2023). The triggers and consequences of the Queen Bee phenomenon: A systematic literature review and integrative framework. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 65(1), 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12957
Groves, K. S. (2005). Gender differences in social and emotional skills and charismatic leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 11(3), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190501100303
Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Αpplied Psychology, 77(4), 536. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536
Hurst, J., Leberman, S., & Edwards, M. (2016). Women managing women. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 31(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/gm-03-2015-0018
Jackson, S. L. (2015). Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach (5th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Karren, R. J., & Barringer, M. W. (2002). A review and analysis of the policy-capturing methodology in organizational research: Guidelines for research and practice. Organizational Research Methods, 5(4), 337–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442802237115
Keller, T. (1999). Images of the familiar: Individual differences and implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 589– 607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00033-8
Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: an attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00007-9
Koula, A. M., & Zampetakis, L. A. (2022). Factors affecting employees’ intention to telework. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 27(3), 98–117. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.26830
Mitropoulou, E. M., & Zampetakis, L. (2024). How leaders reach to ethical leadership: An unfolding item response theory analysis. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 29(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.12681/psy_hps.30446
Palij, M. (2014). Numbers, words, and things: Reviewing a statistics and methods dictionary [Review of the book APA dictionary of statistics and research methods, by S. Zedeck]. PsycCRITIQUES, 59(25). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036614
Quosai, H. (2022). The characterization of dark leadership: Workplace bullying, psychological harassment, or office politics? [Doctoral dissertation, Royal Roads University]. http://dx.doi.org/10.25316/IR-17737
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1004–1010. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.77.5.1004
Schein, V. E. (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00235
Schilling, J. (2009). From ineffectiveness to destruction: A qualitative study on the meaning of negative leadership. Leadership, 5(1), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715008098312
Sobczak, A. (2018). The Queen Bee Syndrome: The paradox of women discrimination on the labour market. Journal of Gender and Power, 9(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.14746/jgp.2018.9.005
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. J. Hatch & M. Schultz (Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 56–65). Oxford University Press.
Tepper, B. J. (2007). Abusive supervision in work organizations: Review, synthesis, and research agenda. Journal of Management, 33(3), 261–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300812
Treischl, E., & Wolbring, T. (2022). The past, present and future of factorial survey experiments: A review for the social sciences. Methods, Data, Analyses, 16(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2021.07
Van Laar, C., Bleeker, D., Ellemers, N., & Meijer, E. (2014). Ingroup and outgroup support for upward mobility: Divergent responses to ingroup identification in low status groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(6), 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2046
Van Vugt, M. (2006). Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 354–371. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_5
Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D. M. (1999, December). Success under tokenism: Co‐option of the newcomer and the prevention of collective protest. British Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466699164220
Wright, S. C. (2001). Restricted intergroup boundaries. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The Psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 223-256). Cambridge University Press.
Wuertele, R. (2017). The influence of the Queen Bee Syndrome on the attitudes, behaviors and emerging behaviors and emerging leadership styles of the millennials [Master’s Thesis, Linnaeus University Kalmar].
Zampetakis, L. A., & Moustakis, V. S. (2010). Quantifying uncertainty in ranking problems with composite indicators: a Bayesian approach. Journal of Modelling in Management, 5(1), 63-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/17465661011026176
Most read articles by the same author(s)