Delving Into Feminine Stereotypes: Female CEOs and the Corporate Social (Ir)Responsibility–Firm Performance Relationship.

In this study, we advance a more nuanced view of gender-based stereotypes about female chief executive officers (CEOs) to shed light on the divergent findings about outcomes associated with their firms' actions. We draw on gender stereotyping literature and its delineation between prescriptive and descriptive gender stereotypes— how women ought to be/act versus how they actually are/act—to theorize that not all female CEOs embody the same prescriptive feminine ideals and, thus, variance in how they are perceived may affect outcomes manifesting from certain firm actions. Specifically, we theorize that there also exists a "double-edged" sword among female CEOs such that the more a female CEO is seen as descriptively aligning with prescriptive ideals of feminine actions and perceptions, the stronger the associated outcomes for their firms will be, whether positive or negative. We test how perceptions of communality and attractiveness—the two most desirable prescriptive perceptions for how women ought to be—affect the corporate social responsibility (CSR) and irresponsibility (CSiR) to firm performance relationship, which align, or fail to align, respectively, with desirable prescriptive feminine actions of helping or hurting others and society. We find that the more a female CEO descriptively aligns with such communality and attractiveness prescriptions, the stronger the CSR and CSiR to firm performance relationship will be. The results of our study suggest that the gendered beliefs to which female CEOs are subjected are more nuanced and complex than the current literature explains, contributing to theory and practice alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]