Sarah A. Soule, Davina Drabkin and Lori Mackenzie* say poor word choices in the materials used in MBA programs are reinforcing stereotypes about women and leadership.
Image: fcscafeine
Stereotypes are often reinforced by the words we choose to use.
For example, when researchers recently analysed massive text datasets, they found that in the 1910s, Asians in the US were often characterised by words like “barbaric” or “monstrous” while descriptors like “passive” and “sensitive” are more common today.
We see stereotypical word choices play out in the workplace.
Job ads for professional roles are often peppered with stereotypically masculine words.
Research from the Women’s Leadership Lab reveals that stereotypes also affect how managers write performance reviews and talk about people in talent reviews.
These patterns have consequences.
Word choices reinforce often inaccurate stereotypes, creating disadvantages when those stereotypes do not align with markers of success.
Based on our experience teaching in MBA programs, we suspected that similar word choices and stereotypes were playing out in the materials used in these programs.
Women protagonists are not only scarce (only 9 per cent of cases feature female protagonists), but that they show up in primarily “pink” industries or roles, are typically the only woman in the case, and are not described as in depth as their male counterparts.
We looked at the 249 case studies taught in Stanford University’s MBA core curriculum from 2015–2017: just 16 per cent of the protagonists were women.
We then analysed the text and discovered four ways that writers rely on stereotypes to describe the people and situations in the cases.
Stereotyping trends in case studies
Lacking context and reinforcing stereotypes about consumer behaviour:
We saw stereotypes in descriptions of consumer motivations or behaviours.
Here are some examples from two different cases about Cialis, the prescription medication for erectile dysfunction (ED).
The author says that ED “can lead to additional psychological effects, such as a reduction in feeling masculine and close to one’s partner”.
“Over 90 per cent of men and women reported that confidence in a man’s sexual ability is critical to having a good love relationship.”
While the studies may have shown a reduction in feeling masculine, the statement, as written, reinforces the stereotype that a man’s sexual ability is and should be important to his sense of masculinity.
In another case, the author includes a section about partners of men who experience ED and only women partners are described.
If only women partners were included in the study, the author could acknowledge this and note that Cialis isn’t only used by heterosexual men.
Promoting gender stereotypes and reinforcing gender roles:
In cases with a women protagonist, authors commonly included details that reinforced stereotypes of women as communal and men as agentic.
We also found that authors used descriptors or highlighted details for women that are not typically used for male protagonists — and were not relevant to the teaching points.
For example, one author included this quote: “She’s fun, she likes to smile, and she’s really interesting.”
“If you met her outside of a work setting when she was with her kids, you would probably think, ‘Now that’s a nice mum,’ and you wouldn’t realise you had been talking with a captain of industry.”
This type of description not only reinforces the stereotypes that women are communal, but it also unnecessarily pits “a nice mum” against “a captain of industry”.
Similarly, authors often included quotes that promote and reinforce gender roles.
Another case includes a quote: “Of course, the lunch prepared by the wife is best and ours is the second.”
This could easily have been edited to say that the protagonist acknowledged that “home cooked meals are best”.
Another — “Most of them are just mamma’s boys and don’t want to do the work” — polices masculinity and reinforces the norm of men as breadwinners.
Conflating stereotypes and marketing segmentation:
Case studies in marketing and advertising can be particularly challenging since authors need to capture how various organisations identify and describe personas, which often draw from stereotypes.
Take this example from a case in which the author writes: “The demographic on the Kindle is ‘not a 25-year-old male gadget nerd but a 50-year old novel-reading female.’”
The point here is not that case authors shouldn’t include the marketing strategy or the language that companies use to describe customer segments.
However, instructors using these cases can explain that market segments and stereotypes are not necessarily the same, and that when companies rely on stereotypes, they may be leaving out certain employees or customers who don’t fit the stereotype.
Teaching to Challenge Stereotypes
Our goal as educators should be that students from every gender, race, or national origin, see themselves as leaders or learn about leaders who are not like them in authentic — not stereotypical — ways.
We offer a few suggestions for instructors.
Conduct an audit of the language in the cases you are presenting:
When choosing cases to teach, review the language used carefully.
You may not be able — or want — to completely avoid cases with problematic language but if you’re aware that it exists, you can help students learn from it.
Remove or contextualise stereotypical language:
If you are writing a case, watch out for the stereotypical trends we identified.
In most cases, descriptors as in the examples above are meant to enhance engagement with the characters but are not necessarily germane to the case.
If you aren’t sure if they’re necessary, try removing them and see if the case reads just as well.
If you can rewrite the case, do so.
If the case reflects a real-life situation where stereotypes did affect the outcomes of the case, note that in the writing.
Teach students to identify stereotypes:
Write a cover letter with advice on how to catch these patterns and ask students to underline any potentially problematic language and be prepared to discuss how it affected their assessment of the protagonists, consumers, or the situation.
* Sarah A. Soule is the Morgridge Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. In the US.
Davina Drabkin is Product Manager for Stanford Embark, an online resource for entrepreneurs.
Lori Mackenzie is Executive Director of the Clayman Institute at Stanford University and co-founder of Stanford VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab.
This article first appeared at hbr.org.
