↓ Skip to main content

The Evolution of Empathy and Women’s Precarious Leadership Appointments

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
twitter
8 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Evolution of Empathy and Women’s Precarious Leadership Appointments
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01751
Pubmed ID
Authors

John G. Vongas, Raghid Al Hajj

Abstract

Glass cliffs describe situations in which women are promoted to executive roles in declining organizations. To explain them, some authors suggest that people tend to "think crisis-think female." However, the root cause of this association remains elusive. Using several subfields of evolutionary theory, we argue that biology and culture have shaped the perception of women as being more empathic than men and, consequently, as capable of quelling certain crises. Some crises are more intense than others and, whereas some brew within organizations, others originate from the external environment. We therefore propose that women will be selected to lead whenever a crisis is minimal to moderate and stems primarily from within the organization. Men, on the other hand, will be chosen as leaders whenever the crisis threatens the very existence of the firm and its source is an external threat. Leadership is a highly stressful experience, and even more so when leaders must scale glass cliffs. It is imperative that we understand what gives rise to them not only because they place women and potentially other minorities in positions where the likelihood of failure is high, but also because they help propagate stereotypes that undermine their true leadership ability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 98 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 11%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 30%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 18%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 24 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 64. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#622,836
of 24,205,409 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#1,270
of 32,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,568
of 287,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#25
of 487 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,205,409 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,533 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 287,529 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 487 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.