Women Leaders During a Global Crisis
Challenges, Characteristics, and Strengths
Abstract
Abstract. Women make up almost 50% of our global population (World Bank, 2019); however, they comprise only 6% of elected nation leaders (UN Women, 2020a). Though small in number, when coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic impacted our societies in 2019, women leaders were featured for their skillful navigation of an unknown and invisible threat. An understanding of the history of work toward gender equity, the current state of female leadership, and the continued barriers facing female leadership are reviewed to gain increased appreciation for why this emphasis was placed on female leadership. Researches analyzing women leaders during COVID-19 during the early months of the pandemic are presented, showcasing the promising and significant findings. Global women leaders consistently demonstrated a trend of enacting prompt public health measures, resulting in low death rates.
Impact and Implications.
This manuscript addresses the continued barriers to increasing women in positions of power, the benefits of having women in decision-making positions, and recommendations to increase the rate of women leaders. In this global public health crisis, leadership qualities more often exhibited by female leaders will aid in building a more sustainable future, fueling the UN's sustainable development goal (SDG) #5 – gender equality.
“I’m absolutely confident that for 2 years if every nation on earth was run by women, you would see a significant improvement across the board on just about everything … living standards and outcomes” (Obama, 2019).
In January 2020, only 10 of the 152 heads of state (elected national representative) and 10 of the 193 heads of government (leader of executive government) worldwide were women (United Nations [UN], 2020a). Although women make up almost 50% of our global population (World Bank, 2019), they comprise only 6% of elected nation leaders (UN, 2020a). Though small in number, when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic impacted our societies in 2019, women leaders were featured for their skillful navigation of an unknown and invisible threat. This paper will address the current state of female leadership globally, barriers to women gaining leadership roles, and characteristics of women’s leadership highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Current State of Female Leadership
Although 184 countries have pledged gender equality in their constitutions (UN, 2019), the work toward true gender parity continues. Currently, gender equality is the fifth of 17 United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals to promote a world that is inclusive and sustainable for us all (UN, n.d.a). The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports a political parity score that indicates how well women are represented at all levels of political participation in a country’s government (CFR, 2020). Political parity scores range from 0 to 100, with 100 meaning that women make up at least 50% of a nation’s government. Overall, only 19 countries hold a score of 50 or higher, and Costa Rica has the highest score of 74 (CFR, 2020). Indeed, women make up only 57 of the 278 speakers of parliament worldwide, and a slightly larger percentage, 25%, hold the title of deputy speakers of parliament (UN, 2020a). Throughout the world, women remain drastically under-represented in politics (UN Women, 2020). Within the field of psychology, women do not fare much better. In its 101-year history, the International Association of Applied Psychology (IAAP) has had only one female president, recently elected in 2018 (IAAP, 2021). Additionally, only a handful of women have presided over the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology from 1972 to present (IACCP, n.d.). These data suggest decisions that significantly impact our societies are largely devoid of women’s unique perspectives and are made without substantive contributions from women.
Barriers to Female Leadership
The inequitable rates between men and women leaders cannot be explained by an inadequate number of women available for leadership. Instead, the subsequent section will discuss continued barriers to women holding positions of leadership. These ongoing barriers include stereotypes, bias, and discrimination, as well as familial tensions.
Gender Stereotypes
Across the globe, gendered stereotypes regarding leadership maintain the “think manager think male” phenomenon. Research conducted within the United States, Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and various African nations demonstrates that men and stereotypical attributes of men are associated with effective leadership (Cundiff et al., 2010; Heilman, 2012; Hodges, 2017; Khattab & Rosette, 2017; Nkomo & Ngambi, 2009; Schein et al., 1996). Stereotypically, women are expected to engage in “communal” behaviors, defined as friendliness, concern with the well-being of others, nurturing, and high emotional expression (Cundiff et al., 2010; Lakoff, 1975; Sardabi & Afghari, 2015; Williams et al., 1999). In contrast, men are viewed as “agentic” and, therefore, expected to be assertive, independent, and authoritarian in their leadership style (Cundiff et al., 2010; Williams et al., 1999). Men are more likely to be viewed as better leaders and when women engage in behaviors typically expected of males, they are assigned negative qualities, such as being bitter and selfish, and judged more harshly than a male peer (Abdalla, 2015; Dubai Women Establishment, 2009; Eagly et al., 1992; Heilman, 2001; Rudman & Glick, 1999, 2001). Overall, men are more likely than women to be viewed as natural leaders.
Bias, Discrimination, and Intersectionality
Experiences of gender-based bias, discrimination, and violence serve as additional hindrances to women ascending into leadership positions. In total, 35% to 70% of women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence (UN, 2020c; WHO, 2013), and women and girls comprise over 70% of all human trafficking victims (UN, 2020c). These threats limit a woman’s autonomy and choices and can serve to undermine her ambitions. Once in leadership roles, a significant proportion of women experience hostile work environments. In the United States, Japan, and Sweden, women supervisors were between 30% and 100% more likely to have been sexually harassed in the last 12 months compared to their nonsupervisory female counterparts (Folke et al., 2020). Eighty-two percent of women parliamentary leaders in 39 countries endorsed experiencing psychological or other violence (Inter Parliamentary Union [IPU], 2016; UN, 2020c). Sixty-five percent of these female parliamentary respondents reported enduring sexist remarks, and 44% described threats of death, rape, assault, or abduction toward themselves or their families (IPU, 2016). There is a dearth of research on male leaders’ experience of hostile work environments. However, data collected in over 30 North American and European countries maintain that women experience sexual harassment at significantly greater rates than men (Van Dijk et al., 2007). Additionally, Nigeria’s Federal Office of Statistics (2012) found that between 9% and 13% of men experienced sexual harassment at work, whereas women experienced 40% to 68% of workplace sexual harassment.
Intersectionality is also vital as several social factors interplay with gender bias to further limit potential opportunities. Minority women (e.g., Asian, Caribbean, African, Latin American, Aboriginal, Arab, and Pacific Islander) face higher ethnic and sexual harassment rates in the workplace (Berdahl & Moore, 2006). Across the globe, colorism continues to impact individuals’ perceptions of themselves and the opportunities they are afforded, adding yet another barrier to leadership for darker-skinned women of historically marginalized backgrounds (Rahman, 2020; Sims & Hirudayaraj, 2015; Yeung, 2016). Indigenous women disproportionately experience domestic violence, human trafficking, poverty, and multiple other adverse consequences of colonization (United Nations Economic and Social Council [UNESC], 2013). Indigenous women may also lack identification documents, limiting them from achieving financial stability and engaging in public service (UNESC, 2013). In rural areas, established dispute processes may inherently exclude women from political processes. For example, in Bangladesh, the shalish mediation process is male-only, even if a woman is involved in the issue to be mediated (O’Neil & Domingo, 2016). Additionally, women with disabilities experience poor access to assistive technology, justice and education, and ongoing biased perceptions that serve to instill additional barriers to agency and full participation in life (UN Women, 2018).
Family Tensions and Gender Roles
Family tensions due to perceptions of gender roles may also limit women’s engagement in work, thereby undermining leadership opportunities. Globally, 20% of women between the ages of 20 and 24 married before they were 18 years old (UN, n.d.b.; UNICEF, 2018), with roughly 650 million women alive today who were child brides (Whiting, 2019). Girls and women in these marriages tend to experience interrupted or discontinued education, domestic violence, social isolation, restrictions on individual rights to travel and work, and limited ability to negotiate family planning (Leclerc-Madlala, 2008; UN, n.d.b; UN, 2020c). Being married is also associated with reduced labor force participation for women worldwide. Prior to marriage, women comprise 66% to 73% of the global labor force, and this number drops to 52% for married/partnered women (UN, n.d.b). Contrastingly, when men marry, their labor force participation rate increases from approximately 85% to 96% (UN, n.d.b). Moreover, women contribute to over 76% of unpaid care work, including community, domestic, and caregiving activities (Charmes, 2019). Accordingly, when researchers examined data from 37 countries in Europe, North and South Americas, Asia, and Oceania, they found that women face more work interference with family and family interference with work (Kaufman & Taniguchi, 2019).
Women Leadership and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Leadership in Crisis
Although women face significant barriers to leadership, once they have attained positions of power, women promote policies that improve the general welfare of their communities. When women were elected in Indian district elections, neonatal mortality decreased, efforts to increase access to clean drinking water were implemented, and adolescent girls spent more time in school and reported higher occupational goals (Beaman et al., 2012; Bhalotra & Clots-Figueras, 2011; Chattopadhyay & Duflo, 2004). When Afghan village council leadership is 50% female, women rate their leaders as concerned about the entire village’s welfare, whereas male leaders are more likely to support irrigation- and transportation-related projects (e.g., roads and bridges), efforts more likely to enhance quality of life for men who typically enjoy increased mobility and control over land ownership (Beath et al., 2012). Additionally, women legislators in Rwanda were more likely to focus on policies that improved healthcare and well-being of children and families (Powley, 2006).
During the current COVID-19 global health crisis, health concerns, financial insecurity, and changes to education platforms and access have resulted in significant stress and concern for the future (American Psychological Association, 2020; World Bank, 2021). Understanding how people process information and respond to crises informs us of the leadership qualities needed during the COVID-19 pandemic. During a crisis, individuals can often feel fear, anxiety, helplessness, and uncertainty (Centre for Disease Prevention and Control [CDC, 2019]; Nicomedes & Avila, 2020; Shultz et al., 2016). They may experience difficulty accurately interpreting and recalling information, changing current or deeply held beliefs, and maintaining objective awareness of the problem (CDC, 2019; Fischhoff et al., 2020).
Crises call for leadership traits empirically noted to be more associated with women. Scholars studying organizational development underscore that influential crisis leaders identify early signals of the crisis; work with professional consultants to form a crisis management team; engage in efficient decision making, coordination, and communication during the situation; and continually learn and assess throughout the process (Fener & Çevik, 2015). Eagly et al.'s (2003) meta-analysis found evidence that women tend to be less hierarchical, more cooperative and collaborative, and focused on developing and mentoring their subordinates. Men from multiple nations, however, were found to exhibit active and passive management by exception wherein there is a focus on subordinates’ mistakes and limited involvement until significant problems arise (Eagly et al., 2003).
Men and women have also been found to utilize different strategies in high-stakes and high-stress situations. Three research studies found that US women demonstrate a tendency to take less risk under pressure (Lighthall et al., 2009; Preston et al., 2007; van den Bos et al., 2009). A study examining gender and leadership during COVID-19 found that women leaders are focused on macro- and state-level policies. In contrast, countries with male administration placed a focus on regulating individual behaviors (Windsor et al., 2020). In the United States, a study assessing 454 men and 366 women business leaders compared their overall leadership effectiveness, as assessed by subordinates, peers, and supervisors, during March to June 2020. Overall, North American women were rated as more effective leaders during the initial COVID-19 wave, with women having a statistically significantly higher score on 13 of 19 leadership attributes assessed (Zenger & Folkman, 2020). Leader characteristics valued during the COVID-19 pandemic included flexibility, ability to learn new skills, honesty and integrity, commitment to employee development, and sensitivity to their subordinate’s challenges (Zenger & Folkman, 2020). These noted traits, found to have greater association with women leaders, likely allowed for the lower death rates in women-led nations described in the subsequent section.
Windsor et al. (2020) examined national-level data of 175 countries across the world and concluded that women leaders’ dual expectations to exhibit stereotypically feminine and masculine behavior have resulted in their optimal performance during COVID-19. These authors assert that crisis situations require both strong decisiveness and humane factors that allow women leaders to optimize the “double-bind” expectations of women leaders. During COVID-19, women demonstrated an ability to engage in decisive actions to close borders while also showing compassion and nurturance, such as when Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg held a special press conference for children (Fouche, 2020; Taub, 2020).
Female Leaders and COVID-19 Death Rates
Bilinski and Emmanuel (2020) examined COVID-19 deaths per capita from February to September 2020. Data were examined from 19 countries with populations greater than 5 million and gross domestic product greater than $25,000 per capita. Five women-led nations – Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, and Switzerland – were categorized in the “moderate mortality” group, and only one nation with a female leader was classified as “high mortality.” The “moderate mortality” women-led countries reported per capita death rates of 5–20.6, while countries categorized as “high mortality” reported 36–86.8 deaths per capita since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Four of the women-led nations did not exceed a rate of 11.3 deaths per capita due to COVID-19. The researchers also compared excess all-cause mortality rate per capita. Of the countries with women leaders, the most significant difference in fatalities per capita when comparing COVID-19 and all-cause mortality was 19. However, estimations of the all-cause mortality rates were more than 30 deaths per capita compared to COVID-19 death rates for some nations in the high mortality group. Belgium, whose formal government collapsed in 2018 (Rivera, 2018), was the only female-led nation in the high mortality group.
In another study, Garikipati and Kambhampatic (2020) examined whether being a female or male led-country resulted in different COVID-19 outcomes. The researchers gathered information on total COVID-19 deaths and cases during the first quarter of the pandemic in 194 countries. They matched female-led countries to their nearest neighbors based on four sociodemographic and economic characteristics: GDP per capita, population, the population in urban agglomerations, and population over 65 years old. The results yielded a definite and consistent pattern, confirming that COVID-19 deaths were lower in women-led countries. To further determine the soundness of the study’s results, they removed from their sample the three nations most in the media spotlight for COVID-19, the United States, Germany, and New Zealand, to assess their impact. The finding that female-led countries had fewer COVID-19 deaths was only strengthened.
Similarly, an examination of 35 countries conducted by Coscieme et al. (2020) concluded that female leaders were more rapid and effective at flattening the epidemic’s curve. Researchers utilized data from the European CDC from the start of the pandemic through July 31, 2020. Countries were included in the study if they had continuous data, a gross national income per capita of $3,956 or higher, high to very high Human Development Index (defined as lifespan, educational level, and gross national income), and a democratic government. For each country, data were analyzed on the number of COVID-19 deaths per capita, the number of days with at least one reported death, and the highest daily number of deaths as a proportion of the population. Women led 10 of these countries, and countries led by women had 1.6 times fewer deaths per capita than their male counterparts. Peaks of death were also seven times lower in women-led countries. The average highest daily COVID-19 death rate was 91 across the women-led countries, whereas it was 643 for countries led by men (Coscieme et al., 2020).
Female Leaders and Public Health Policies
Specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, female leaders demonstrated a trend of following science-based evidence and taking rapid action to address the pandemic (e.g., Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir’s early crowd restriction in mid-March 2020, and Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel considered a variety of data sources, including epidemiological models and data from medical providers, in developing Germany’s coronavirus policies). Garikipati and Kambhampatic (2020) found that female-led countries locked down significantly earlier than their male-led countries. Coscieme et al. (2020) also reported a pattern of women leaders executing lockdown measures swiftly. These policies resulted in female-led countries consistently having fewer deaths from COVID-19 per capita, a lower peak in daily deaths per capita, a shorter number of days with confirmed deaths, and lower excess mortality.
Araya (2020) conducted a systematic evaluation of the performance of 166 governments during COVID-19. He examined the reaction time of when a leader publicly acknowledged the virus and the appropriateness of the leader’s response. He found that many women leaders reacted quickly and adopted science-based policies. He noted Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel sharing the “truth” about the COVID-19; New Zealand’s Premier Jacinda Ardern’s and Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen’s decisive actions; and the swift adoption to use technology to test, trace, and better understand the virus by Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrin Jakobsdottir and Finland’s Premier Sanna Marin. Results demonstrated that women leaders reacted faster to contain the virus. All leaders studied enacted COVID-19-specific public health policies by 32 days after an outbreak was detected in their respective countries. However, women reacted faster, with half of all the women leaders taking a measure by day 24. The women leaders were also quicker in canceling international travel, releasing informational campaigns, and instituting contact tracing (Araya, 2020). However, women leaders were slower to close schools than their male counterparts, as noted in another study (Aldrich & Lotito, 2020). This decision possibly underscores female leaders’ awareness of the gendered consequences of school closures and its likely disproportionate impact on women. It is consistent with the fact that women tend to prioritize issues (i.e., education, welfare, and healthcare) that support all constituents more than men (Cowper-Coles, 2020).
While much attention has been focused on women nation leaders, Parmar and Neelam (2020) studied South Asian local women leaders’ COVID-19 management. Sarpanches (heads of villages), legislative members in India, mayors in Nepal, and the Health Ministers in Bhutan and Sri Lanka were among those examined. These women leaders collaborated with relevant stakeholders and utilized technology to mobilize their communities. In Kerala, India, Health Minister K. K. Shailaja used social media channels to continuously update the public and debunk false myths and news about COVID-19. Similarly, Mayor Kantika Sequval, from a remote part of Nepal, used local TV and radio stations to convey timely information. Bhutan Health Minister Dechen Wangmo had a preparedness plan which included early screening and mandatory quarantine, resulting in significantly minimized COVID-19 deaths. Bhutan reported its first and only COVID-19 death in January 2021, 10 months into the pandemic (Parmar & Neelam, 2020). Within the United States, data collected from January 21 to May 5, 2020, revealed that female governors issued orders to stay-at-home earlier, and their states had fewer COVID-19 deaths (Sergent & Stajkovic, 2020).
Factors That May Interact to Bolster the Success of Women Leaders During COVID-19
The previous section outlined the unique qualities of women leaders and associated distinct approaches to address COVID-19. However, some scholars maintain that we are not witnessing a phenomenon due to variances in gender alone. Windsor et al. (2020) examined COVID-19 deaths, gender of countries’ leaders, and several other covariates. The researchers found no statistically significant difference in COVID-19 fatalities between countries led by men versus women. Windsor et al. (2020) extended their analyses to include non-Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and found limited support for lower reported fatality rates in women-led countries; however, the differences were not statistically significant. Notably, these researchers identified a nation as woman-led even if a woman was not head of state. For example, a country with a woman holding authority over the nation’s military was identified as woman-led. Therefore, these data may include countries in which women leaders do not have actual authority to enact policies during COVID-19. It remains important to highlight the successes of the minority of women leaders globally and identify factors that may enhance these successes to promote women’s leadership roles.
Analysis of nation-level COVID-19 protocols and outcomes offers some factors that may interact to bolster successes experienced by women-led nations. Specifically, the cultural values held by a nation’s citizens and a nation’s overall disaster preparedness are important to the success of women leaders, especially during a crisis (Coscieme et al., 2020; Windsor et al., 2020). Indeed, Coscieme et al. (2020) identified that women-led countries were more progressive, equitable, and healthy. These nations’ citizens may be more likely to comply with efforts that support the greater good, thereby adhering to COVID-19 policies and reducing the morbidity and mortality rates. Additionally, women-led countries may have emergency preparedness systems to mitigate crises more effectively (Windsor et al., 2020). Indeed, researchers identified that nations categorized as women-led had higher disaster preparedness ratings than men-led countries (Windsor et al., 2020). Therefore, having a national plan to address crises likely allowed for ease of consensus-building in implementing health policies, thereby bolstering the success of women leaders during COVID-19.
Conclusion
The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic can degrade progress made toward women’s rights and gender equality (UN, n.d.c). Women have traditionally been overrepresented in low and unpaid labor markets and assume a disproportionate majority of childcare and domestic responsibilities (Cameron et al., in press). During COVID-19, women are involved in frontline healthcare, engage in unpaid care work at home due to school closures, experience disparate financial insecurity, and face increased violence during stay-at-home orders (UN, n.d.c; UN, 2020b, UN Women, 2020). History shows that when policies include female voices and are gender-responsive, more effective responses to infectious disease outbreaks occur (UN, 2020b).
While the data highlighting women leaders during COVID-19 are predominantly from the pandemic’s early months, this research is promising and significant. Global women leaders consistently demonstrated a trend of enacting prompt public health measures. Women leaders who embraced science were more risk-averse than men when considering life versus economics, resulting in systematically locking down their countries more quickly than male leaders, resulting in low death rates (Garikipati & Kambhampati, 2021; Taub, 2020). To achieve gender equality, the world needs more women in charge of its nations (CFR, 2020). Importantly, when women throughout the world hold leadership positions, leadership perceptions become less biased and more androgynous (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004; Koenig et al., 2011).
This focus on women’s leadership is promising and important as the work toward equity continues. To further these efforts, consideration of other factors that promote women leaders is imperative. Specifically, a nation’s ideals and values are likely to set the stage for women’s participation in politics and related response from its citizens. Collective, inclusive, and progressive values are likely to promote equity and further the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, especially goal 5, gender equality (UN Women, 2020).
It is important to note that the authors maintained binary terms of male/female and women/men to highlight gender inequity and disparities. However, we acknowledge that gender identity is a much more expansive and fluid spectrum. Additionally, while speaking of the female experience, the authors recognize that many organizations and data collection efforts focus on a male–female household and partnership that does not encapsulate the many forms of partnerships in today’s society.
References
(2015). Career facilitators and barriers of Arab women senior executives. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(8), 218–232. 10.5539/ijbm.v10n8p218
(2020). Pandemic performance: Women leaders in the COVID-19 crisis. Politics & Gender, 16(4), 960–967. 10.1017/S1743923X20000549
. (2020). Stress in America 2020: A national mental health crisis. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/infographics-october
(2020). World leaders and COVID-19: Women, populists, and political families reacted faster. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3728270
(2012). Female leadership raises aspirations and educational attainment for girls: A policy experiment in India. Science, 335(6068), 582–586. 10.1126/science.1212382
(2012). Empowering women: Evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12116
(2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 426–436. 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426
(2011). Health and the political agency of women. SSRN. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1977802
(2020). COVID-19 and excess all-cause mortality in the US and 18 comparison countries. JAMA, 324(20), 2100. 10.1001/jama.2020.20717
(in press). COVID-19 and Women: Key components of SDG-5 and the estimated prevalence of modern slavery. International Perspectives in Psychology.
. (2019). CERC: Psychology of a crisis. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/ppt/CERC_Psychology_of_a_Crisis.pdf
(2019). The unpaid care work and the labour market. An analysis of time use data based on the latest world compilation of time-use surveys. International Labour Office. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/-dgreports/-gender/documents/publication/wcm_9732791.pdf.
(2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443. 10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x
(2020). Women in power: Female leadership and public health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv. 10.1101/2020.07.13.20152397
. (2020). Women's power index. https://www.cfr.org/article/womens-power-index
(2020). Women political leaders: The impact of gender on democracy. The Global Institute for Women’s leadership. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/assets/women-political-leaders.pdf
(2010). Males' attitudes towards working females in Saudi Arabia. Personnel Review, 39(6), 749–766. 10.1108/00483481011075594
(2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658. 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
. (2009). Arab women leadership outlook 2009–2011. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/women-at-pwc/assets/arab-women-leadership-outlook.pdf
(1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 3–22. 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3
(2003). Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 569–591. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569
. (2012). Annual reports. Federal Ministry of Planning. https://www.nigerianstat.gov.ng/pdfuploads/annual_abstract_2012.pdf
(2015). Leadership in crisis management: Separation of leadership and executive concepts. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 695–701. 10.1016/s2212-5671(15)00817-5
(2020). Using the psychological science of crisis leadership and communications to navigate the coronavirus: A webinar for public officials. https://www.apa.org/practice/programs/dmhi/research-information/covid-19-webinar-pubic-officials.pdf
(2020). Sexual harassment of women leaders. Daedalus, 149(1), 180–197. 10.1162/daed_a_01781
(2020). Norway PM tells kids: “It is OK to feel scared” during coronavirus. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-norway-children-idUSKBN2131NE
(2021). Leading the fight against the pandemic: Does gender “really” matter? SSRN. 10.2139/ssrn.3617953
(2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. 10.1111/0022-4537.00234
(2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. 10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003
(2017). Cracking the walls of leadership: Women in Saudi Arabia. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 32(1), 34–46. 10.1108/GM-11-2015-0106
. (2016). Sexism, harassment and violence against women parliamentarians. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/issue-briefs/2016-10/sexism-harassment-and-violence-against-women-parliamentarians
. (2021). History of IAAP. https://iaapsy.org/about/historyofiaap/
. (n.d.). Historical list of IACCP officers. https://www.iaccp.org/historical-list-of-iaccp-officers/
(2019). Gender equality and work–family conflict from a cross-national perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 60(6), 385–408. 10.1177/0020715219893750
(2017). 6 workplace barriers faced by women leaders in emerging markets. In S. ChengaduC. Scheepas (Eds.), Women leadership in emerging markets: Featuring 46 women leaders (pp. 164–193). Routledge.
(2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. 10.1037/a0023557.
(1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper & Row.
(2008). Age-disparate and intergenerational sex in southern Africa: The dynamics of hypervulnerability. AIDS, 22(Suppl 4), S17–S25. 10.1097/01.aids.0000341774.86500.53
(2009). Acute stress increases sex differences in risk seeking in the balloon analogue risk task. PLos One, 4(7), e6002. 10.1371/journal.pone.0006002
(2020). An analysis on the panic during COVID-19 pandemic through an online form. Journal of Affective Disorders, 276, 14–22. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.046
(2009). African women in leadership: Current knowledge and a framework for future studies. International Journal of African Renaissance Studies – Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity, 4(1), 49–68. 10.1080/18186870903102014
(2019). Barack Obama: Women are better leaders than men. BBC News Singapore. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50805822?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c302m85qe3yt/singapore&link_location=live-reporting-story
(2016). Women and power: Overcoming barriers to leadership and influence. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/10293.pdf
(2020July 16). South Asia's women leaders: Disaster management, gender equality and COVID-19. London School of Economics and Political Science. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia2020/07/16/south-asias-women-leaders-disaster-management-gender-equality-and-covid-19/
(2006). Rwanda: The impact of women legislators on policy outcomes affecting children and their families. https://www.unicef.org/sowc07/docs/powley.pdf
(2007). Effects of anticipatory stress on decision making in a gambling task. Behavioral Neuroscience, 121(2), 257–263. 10.1037/0735-7044.121.2.257
(2020). The causes, contributors, and consequences of colorism among various cultures. Honors College Theses, 71, 1–25. https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/honorstheses/71
(2018). Belgian Government down: 7 FAQs about the 2018 political crisis in Belgium. Brussels Express. https://brussels-express.eu/belgian-government-down-7-faqs-about-the-2018- political-crisis-in-belgium/
(2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 743–762. 10.1111/0022-4537.00239
(2015). Gender differences in the use of intensifiers. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(7), 203–213.
(1996). Think manager–think male: A global phenomenon? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17(1), 33–41. 10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(199601)17:1<33::aid-job778>3.0.co;2-f
(2020). Women's leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(8), 771–783. 10.1037/apl0000577
(2016). The role of fear-related behaviors in the 2013–2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease outbreak. Current Psychiatry Reports, 18(11), Article 104. 10.1007/s11920-016-0741-y
(2015). The impact of colorism on the career aspirations and career opportunities of women in India. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(1), 38–53. 10.1177/1523422315616339
(2020). Why are women-led nations doing better with COVID-19? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/world/coronavirus-women-leaders.html
. (2019). Infographic: Human rights of women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/multimedia/2019/12/infographic-human-rights
. (2020a). Women in politics: 2020. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/03/women-in-politics-map-2020
. (2020b). Gender-responsive prevention and management of the COVID-19 pandemic: from emergency response to recovery & resilience. https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/news%20and%20events/in%20focus/covid-19/gender-responsive-prevention-management-covid19.pdf?la=en&vs=1519
. (2020c). Facts and figures: Ending violence against women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/ending-violence-against-women/facts-and-figures
. (n.d.a). Gender equality. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/gender-equality
. (n.d. b). Progress of the World's Women 2019–2020: Families in a Changing World. https://in.one.un.org/un-press-release/progress-worlds-women-report-2019-2020/
. (n.d. c). Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/
. (2018). The empowerment of women and girls with disabilities: Towards full and effective participation and gender equality. https://www.unwomen.org
. (2020). COVID-19 and women’s leadership: From an effective response to building back better. UN Women Policy Brief No. 18. 10.18356/639a046a-en
. (2018). Child marriage: Latest trends and future prospects. https://data.unicef.org/resources/child-marriage-latest-trends-and-future-prospects/
. (2013). Study on the extent of violence against Indigenous women and girls in terms of article 22 (2) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/746509?ln=en
(2009). Stress and decision-making in humans: Performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(10), 1449–1458. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.016
(2007). Criminal victimisation in international perspective: Key findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. Boom Legal Publishers.
(2019). 7 surprising and outrageous stats about gender inequality. World Economic Forum. https://www.weform.org/agenda/2019/03/surprising-stats-about-gender-inequality
(1999). Pancultural gender stereotypes revisited: The five factor model. Sex Roles, 40, 513–525. 10.1023/a:1018831928829
(2020). Gender in the time of COVID-19: Evaluating national leadership and COVID-19 fatalities. PLoS One, 15(12), e0244531. 10.1371/journal.pone.0244531
. (2019). Population, female (% of total population). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS
. (2021). Global economic prospects. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/global-economic-prospects
. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564625
(2016). White and beautiful: An examination of skin whitening practices and female empowerment in China. On our Terms, Center for Research and Digital Scholarship, Columbia University. onourterms.barnard.edu/article/white-and-beautiful/
(2020). Research: Women are better leaders during a crisis. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/12/research-women-are-better-leaders-during-a-crisis
