The CIO stereotype: Content, bias, and impact

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Strategic Information Systems journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsis

The CIO stereotype: Content, bias, and impact ⁎

Paola A. Gonzaleza, , Laurence Ashworthb, James McKeenb a b

Rowe School of Business, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: CIO stereotype IT stereotype IS leadership Strategic leadership role

The current work examines whether there is a stereotype of CIOs that can influence decisions about their role in organizations. We find evidence for a CIO stereotype informed by both an IT stereotype and a general leader stereotype, although CIOs are perceived to have more in common with IT personnel than leaders. Two experiments showed that the CIO stereotype was capable of biasing perceptions of CIOs’ suitability to occupy strategic roles (i.e., a “glass ceiling” effect) and the extent to which they are blamed for negative outcomes (i.e., a “glass cliff” effect). These findings point to the challenges CIOs face in gaining and maintaining strategic leadership roles in organizations.

Introduction “As soon as a CIO walks into a room, the audience forms an immediate impression of what he or she can and cannot do … one aspect of the stereotype highlighted by the CIOs was that they are not considered to be business players” Peppard et al., 2011, p. 18 . The strategic leadership of the CIO is in a state of flux. With the increasing centrality of IT in business processes and overall strategy (Mithas and Rust, 2016), the stature of CIOs has been elevated to the point where many are now members of the organization’s “C-suite”.1 With membership in the C-suite comes the expectation that CIOs will transition from traditional supply-side leadership, focused on service provision, to demand-side leadership, focused on delivering strategic value from IT (Broadbent and Kitzis, 2005; Chen et al., 2010). They will be increasingly expected to offer a vision for how best to leverage the business with IT, promote IT as an agent of business change, redesign organizational strategy, and ultimately create organizational value with IT (Karahanna and Preston, 2013). Studies, however, have reported that CIOs are rarely granted the same leadership authority as other C-suite members (Chen et al., 2010; Kaarst-Brown, 2005) and, as a result, struggle with the transition to strategic leadership. CIOs report their inability to “get a seat at the table” (Grumen, 2016); they are treated as “last among equals” within the C-suite (Delisi et al., 2010); and, proportionally, very few CIOs make it to CEO or are appointed to corporate boards (Brans, 2015; Grant et al., 2015). In short, there appears to be a potent disconnect between the burgeoning importance of IT and a commensurate strategic leadership role for CIOs.

⁎

Corresponding author at: Rowe School of Business, 6100 University Av. Room 5112, B3H 4R2 Halifax, Canada. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P.A. Gonzalez), [email protected] (L. Ashworth), [email protected] (J. McKeen). 1 The term “C-suite” refers to the highest executive committee sometimes referred to as the top management team (TMT). The name “C-suite” reflects that fact that most members of this committee have “Chief” in their title such as the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Chief Operating Officer (COO), and the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.09.002 Received 18 October 2017; Received in revised form 7 September 2018; Accepted 9 September 2018 0963-8687/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Please cite this article as: Gonzalez, P.A., Journal of Strategic Information Systems, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.09.002

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Research has highlighted some possible reasons for this disconnect. Heller (2012), for example, suggested that CIOs often face contradictory demands that make it difficult for them to fulfill all of the expectations of their role. Other researchers (Chen et al., 2010; Preston et al., 2008) have identified a series of factors, such as organizational support for IT, that impact the CIO’s ability to realize organizational value. Much of this work has focused on structural factors within the organization that collectively determine a CIO’s decision-making discretion and efficacy. Other work has fingered CIOs themselves, suggesting that they may lack interpersonal skills or a sufficiently broad understanding of business to function effectively at the strategic level (Dawson and Watson, 2011; Hirschheim et al., 2003; Peppard, 2010). Overall, these explanations identify a combination of organizational and individual-level causes of the difficulties CIOs face in a strategic leadership role. The current research investigates a third class of causal factor based on psychological elements of organizational decision-making. Specifically, we examine the possibility that CIOs may face a range of subtle biases caused by overgeneralized beliefs about their characteristics and tendencies – that is, a CIO stereotype. We investigate whether there is sufficient consensus in beliefs about CIOs that this constitutes a stereotype, and, more importantly, whether these beliefs are capable of biasing reactions to, and decisions involving, CIOs. Anedoctal reports in the practitioner literature (and to a lesser extent in the academic literature) suggest that perceptions of CIOs, as well as management decisions regarding their strategic leadership in organizations, may be influenced by stereotypic beliefs about their traits and abilities (Hirschheim et al., 2003; Kaarst-Brown, 2005; Peppard, 2010; Peppard et al., 2011). There has, however, been little empirical investigation into the content of these beliefs and, more importantly, no causal evidence for their potential to bias judgment and decisions in workplace settings. Thus, the aim of the current work is: (1) to investigate whether there is sufficient consensus in beliefs about CIOs’ traits and abilities to constitute a CIO stereotype; and (2) to test, using controlled experiments, whether stereotypic beliefs of CIOs can causally affect judgments and decisions involving CIOs that may impact their strategic leadership in organizations. To address these questions, we draw on research within IS and cognitive and social psychological research on stereotyping. First, we review the IT leadership and CIO literatures to discuss the different roles and challenges facing CIOs in their efforts to exert strategic leadership discretion and realize IT business value for their organizations. Second, we present theoretical arguments about the likely make-up of the CIO stereotype and its ability to causally impact individuals’ reactions to, and decisions involving, CIOs. Finally, we empirically test our research hypotheses using a combination of surveys and experiments across two sample populations – senior managers and undergraduate business students. Details of the methodology and results of each study are discussed, and theoretical and practical implications are offered. CIO leadership roles The term “CIO” refers to the firm’s top IT executive and leader responsible for managing the IT function by overseeing the firm’s information resources, creating a vision for the role of IT in the firm, redesigning and influencing firm strategy, and ultimately generating business value (Banker et al., 2011). Different leadership roles have been reported in the literature (Preston et al., 2008). According to the 2016 “State of the CIO” survey (CIO, 2016), CIOs can be categorized into three leadership roles: strategic CIOs who spend most of their time on strategy, growth, and innovation activities; transformational CIOs who are focused on implementing new systems and architectures; and functional CIOs who spend their time managing expenses, security, IT crises, and improving IT operations. These different roles are important. Not only do they dictate what a CIO does but also how the CIO is regarded within the organization. Strategic CIOs, in particular, get greater respect and are more likely to have the resources they need (Cavallo, 2016). They have the latitude to set and direct business goals and to enhance firm performance with IT. They have been shown to influence the organization’s strategic position (Banker et al., 2011), especially when their leadership capabilities are high (Preston et al., 2008). Functional IT leaders, in contrast, are more likely to be frustrated and feel continuously embattled. They are also most likely to say IT is scapegoated when other departments miss their goals, most likely to be viewed by other departments as an obstacle to their mission, and most likely to feel that the CIO is being sidelined (Cavallo, 2016; Muse, 2015). Despite this, CIOs remain largely transformational and functional. The 2016 State of the CIO survey (CIO, 2016) found that only 27% of CIOs perceive themselves as having strategic decision-making authority and active participation in top management teams. Furthermore, it is an ongoing battle, even for strategic CIOs, to resist being dragged down by the demanding pressure of operational activities. Although it is not surprising that most CIOs are eager to devote their time to business strategy, a disconnect between their aspirations and daily reality may contribute to why CIOs are more likely than their business counterparts to be frustrated (Cramm, 2010; Gerth and Peppard, 2016; Heller, 2012). A good deal of research has investigated why CIOs seem not to be granted the strategic decision-making authority commensurate with C-suite membership. As noted, Preston et al. (2008) have identified a range of organizational factors that contribute to CIOs’ strategic decision-making authority, including the organizational climate, organizational support for IT, CIOs’ structural power, and the partnership between CIOs and top management. Other work has focused on identifying the specific obstacles CIOs face in fulfilling their role. Heller (2012) describes a series of contradictory expectations and demands placed on CIOs that make it difficult for CIOs to satisfy what top management requires of IT. For example, Heller (2012) notes that CIOs are frequently required to contain costs at the same time as fostering innovation; they are often hired to be strategic but are required to spend most of their time on operational issues; and they are tasked with running a critical organizational function while continually being required to prove its value. Overall, research has identified a variety of organizational factors that circumscribe CIOs’ role in the organization and their ability to deliver value through IT. Other research has focused on the role that CIOs themselves play in determining their outcomes. Some of this work implicitly blames CIOs, encourages them to take a more proactive leadership role in their organizations, and/or admonishes them for not 2

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

having already done so (Applegate and Elam, 1992; Chen et al., 2010; Li and Tan, 2013). It has prescribed that CIOs should become business experts as opposed to technical experts, acquire business degrees if those are lacking (e.g., MBAs), become effective communicators, and learn to deal with the power issues resulting from organization politics (Dawson and Watson, 2011; Lepore et al., 2000). Other work has focused on identifying which CIO abilities (or shortcomings) actually contribute to their success (or lack of). Chen et al. (2010) found that CIO human capital (CIOs’ explicit and tacit knowledge acquired through education and work experience) predicted some aspects of CIOs’ leadership abilities (supply-side, but not demand-side, leadership). Preston et al. (2008) found that, in organizations with less capable CIOs, IT contributed less to organizational performance. Similarly, Sambamurthy et al. (2003) found that CIOs’ IT and business knowledge both contributed to IT assimilation in the organization and also to the participation of CIOs in the top management team. In short, this stream of work suggests that, in addition to the organizational environment, the characteristics of CIOs themselves (e.g., their knowledge and abilities) also contribute to their role in the organization and success in that role. Despite this, a number of researchers and commentators have suggested that there may be more at play in the disconnect between the criticality of IT in producing competitive advantage and the lack of strategic leadership authority among CIOs (Grumen, 2016; Peppard, 2010; Preston et al., 2008). The continuing frustration evident in being a member of the C-suite but without corresponding leadership authority, the gravitational pull of operational issues, and the absence of expectations to help set the strategic agenda is suggestive of other causal factors at work. The situation is analogous to that of minorities in organizations who, despite having requisite skills, desires, expertise and experience, were overlooked for advancement, denied opportunities, and suffered pejorative evaluations (Chung-Herrera and Lankau, 2005; Powell and Butterfield, 1997). In the case of minorities, it was the examination of gender and race-based stereotypes in the workplace that revealed persistent biases that limited their career advancement (Enns et al., 2006; Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1993). The breakthrough came with the realization (and evidence) that perceptions of women and certain minorities were systematically influenced by pre-existing beliefs and attitudes that were capable of affecting decisions about their role within organizations. In short, it was an understanding of the psychological processes that governed decision-makers’ perceptions of employees’ traits and abilities that enabled organizations to take substantive steps toward improving their selection processes. With this as provocation, the current work focuses attention on the psychological factors that might underpin judgments and decisions regarding CIOs. Specifically, we investigate the possibility that managers share stereotypic perceptions of CIOs that can permeate decisions about the leadership role of CIOs in their organizations. Literature review and conceptual development Stereotype theory There is a rich and well-established literature on stereotypes in social psychology. Stereotypes are generally defined as the cognitive structures that contain individuals’ knowledge, beliefs, and expectations about a particular social group (Hinton, 2000; Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). Such groups are typically identified on the basis of a limited number of overt characteristics, such as gender, race, ethnicity, occupation, and appearance (Kunda, 1999). A stereotype exists when groups are associated with a particular set of traits and tendencies (Hinton, 2000), and the process of stereotyping occurs when the traits of the group are attributed to an individual solely on the basis of having been categorized as a member of the group (Allport, 1979; Hinton, 2000). All individuals learn a variety of stereotypes (Devine and Elliot, 1995), and, because social situations are complex and ambiguous, stereotypes can often influence individuals’ perceptions of others (Schneider, 2004). Although early research regarded stereotypes as generally false and dangerous because of their discriminatory and prejudicial consequences (Brigham, 1971), recent work has adopted a more nuanced stance that conceptualizes stereotypes as part of a broader categorization process, recognizes that they are not the same as prejudice, and shows a range of valenced beliefs, including positive (e.g., “black Americans are athletically superior”), negative (e.g., “elderly people are resistant to change”), and neutral (e.g., “lawyers use arcane language”) (Schneider, 2004). Stereotypes have been shown to induce biases across a wide range of judgments (Hinton, 2000; Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). In general, stereotypes affect judgment because they establish expectancies (often implicitly) regarding the likelihood that a group member possesses certain dispositional or behavioral tendencies (Kunda, 1999). These expectancies have two broad consequences: first, they can serve as a source of information about others, especially when the stereotype contains information that is perceived to be relevant to the judgmental context (Schneider, 2004). Second, even when perceivers can directly observe a person’s behavior, stereotypic expectations can influence their reactions and even their interpretation of the behavior (Duncan, 1976; Dunning and Sherman, 1997; Kunda, 1999). In a classic demonstration of this, Duncan (1976) showed that a “jovial shove” by a black man was perceived to be more hostile than the identical behavior enacted by a white man. In a similar vein, Eagly and Karau (2002) argue that leadership behaviors are perceived less positively when enacted by women than men, because such behaviors violate expectations about the way women are supposed to act. In organizational contexts, a number of stereotypes, especially of minority groups, have been shown to influence decision-making. Several studies, for example, have shown that stereotypes of minority groups (e.g., women, Black Americans, Asians) can have an important influence over hiring and promotion decisions (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Greenhaus and Parasuraman, 1993). This is considered one of the factors contributing to the significant underrepresentation of women and minorities at senior levels of management, referred to as the “glass ceiling”2 effect (Chung-Herrera and Lankau, 2005; Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Although stereotypes 2

The glass ceiling is defined as “a barrier so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that it prevents women and minorities from moving up in 3

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Table 1 Positive and negative traits of the IT stereotype. Positive attributes/traits

Negative attributes/traits

Detail-orientedl, task-focusedl Intelligentb c f Logicall, problem-solverl Technically competenta b g

Poor communicatord l Boringb c Introvertedc l, isolatedc k m Maleb f h k, lack of masculinityb e Nerdb c f h m, geeka c g i Socially inept – unable to build relationshipsc

k

d e f j k l

Notes. Attributes/traits loosely organized by theme. a Enns et al. (2006). b Farnall (2003). c García-Crespo et al. (2008). d Keen (1997). e Kendall (1999). f Kendall (2011). g Moore and Love (2013). h Outlay et al. (2012). i Peppard (2010). j Pfleging and Zetlin (2006). k Schott and Selwyn (2000). l Willcoxson and Chatham (2006). m Williams (2006).

in organizational settings have generally been discussed in relation to their harmful consequences, the effect of stereotypes is not exclusively harmful. Employees are most likely to face discrimination when their stereotypic traits conflict with the traits considered important to the job they hold or to which they are applying (Eagly and Karau, 2002). In contrast, stereotypes can lead to preferential treatment when the stereotypic traits are consistent with the desired traits. Ryan et al. (2011), for example, showed that in times of crisis women leaders are substantially favored because they are perceived to possess traits that are more congruent with resolving such situations. These factors will be discussed later in relation to the effects of a possible CIO stereotype. A stereotype of CIOs? A number of writers have referenced the possibility of a CIO stereotype that might interfere with the responsibilities that CIOs are assigned, their opportunities, and their share of the blame when projects do not turn out as planned (Gerth and Peppard, 2016; Heller, 2012; Johnson, 2012; Kaarst-Brown, 2005; Preston et al., 2008). Most of these suggestions are based on the implicit assumption that the CIO stereotype is informed, in large part, by a predominantly negative IT stereotype – that is, a set of shared beliefs about the traits, tendencies, and abilities of “typical” IT professionals. There is, however, a very different stereotype that is also relevant to senior managers – the general “leader” stereotype (Lord et al., 1984). This also seems likely to feature in the traits and tendencies presumed of CIOs. As such, there are quite different possibilities regarding the content of a possible CIO stereotype. We first describe the two relevant stereotypes and then present ideas about how these beliefs may inform perceptions of CIOs. The IT stereotype Although the existence of an IT stereotype has yet to be verified empirically, researchers often refer to its existence (García-Crespo et al., 2008; Peppard, 2010; Stewart, 2002; Willcoxson and Chatham, 2006). Our review of this literature reveals that, although researchers have referred to both positive and negative characteristics of this stereotype (see Table 1 for a summary), a central component is social ineptness (Enns et al., 2006), which is closely linked to the stereotypical “geek factor” (Moore and Love, 2013). In organizational contexts, this characteristic is assumed to be associated with poor communication skills, poor relationship building, and poor leadership skills and is linked to the notion of being “technologically anchored.” Such perceptions are considered undesirable by business managers and are thought to contribute to the “techie-business gap” (Dugan, 2001; Pfleging and Zetlin, 2006). Despite apparent agreement regarding the content of the IT stereotype, evidence for its validity is mixed (Enns et al., 2006). Some researchers have suggested that the number of IT professionals who actually fit the IT stereotype is relatively small (Milton, 2003; Williams, 2006). Other research, in contrast, has found that IT managers can have difficulty building relationships with their business counterparts (Willcoxson and Chatham, 2006), consistent with the stereotype. Nevertheless, as research in social psychology has repeatedly shown, stereotypes can form and perpetuate even when there is no indication of a relationship between group membership and the stereotyped traits (Hinton, 2000; Kunda, 1999). In short, whether or not there is any truth to it, commentors and researchers

(footnote continued) the management hierarchy” (Chung-Herrera and Lankau, 2005, p. 2029). 4

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

appear to agree that an IT stereotype exists. The leader stereotype A variety of work suggests there are certain traits and characteristics that people believe are necessary for successful leadership. Much of this work has been conducted in the context of understanding leader emergence (i.e., how leaders are identified and accepted by followers) (e.g., Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Dinh, 2014; Lord and Maher, 1991). Leaders are thought to emerge, in part, when individuals perceive a potential leader to possess the requisite traits for successful leadership (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Maher, 1991). Individuals’ mental representation of the traits and abilities that characterize successful leaders are known as implicit leadership theories (ILTs) or leader prototypes (Lord et al., 1984; Lord and Dinh, 2014). Although recent work in this field has emphasized the context-specific nature of prototypical leadership traits (Lord and Dinh, 2014), a sizeable body of work has documented a number of characteristics that appear to span conceptions of successful leaders, including intelligence, dominance, sensitivity, dedication, strength, charisma, and tyranny (e.g., Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984; Offermann et al., 1994; Offermann and Coats, in press). Although work on leader perception has emphasized the concept of leader prototypes (or implicit leadership theories) rather than leader stereotypes, these concepts are closely related. Both stereotypes and prototypes refer to associative networks, or schemata, that link the central concept (e.g., “leader”) to a subset of possible characteristics (Kunda, 1999). In the context of leadership, “prototype” is used to refer to an idealized conception of leaders (Epitropaki and Martin, 2004; Lord et al., 1984). In contrast, “stereotype” refers to the collection of characteristics that come to be associated with any identifiable group, and “stereotyping” refers to the application of such traits to individuals based on their group membership (Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). Thus, although prototypes and stereotypes are often used in the context of different processes, they refer to the same type of cognitive structure. As such, elements of leader prototypes or implicit leadership theories are highly relevant to the content of leader stereotypes. Consistent with this, work that has directly referenced leader or manager stereotypes has documented many of the same (perceived) leader traits. This work has generally sought to understand why women and other minority groups are underrepresented in senior management (e.g., Chung-Herrera and Lankau, 2005; Eagly and Karau, 2002) and has suggested that one reason is because stereotypes of women, and other minorities, are often incompatible with stereotypes of leaders or senior managers (“leader prototypes” in the language of leadership emergence literature)3 (Eagly and Karau, 2002). In this context, one of the best known paradigms for understanding leader stereotypes is “think manager-think male” (TMTM) (Offermann and Coats, in press; Schein, 1973; Schein and Mueller, 1992). This work has found that leader stereotypes are closer to male stereotypes than female stereotypes. Examples of stereotypic leader characteristics from this work include emotionally stable, aggressive, objective, and well informed (Schein, 1973). Koenig et al.’s (2011) comprehensive meta-analysis of leader stereotypes and Offerman and Coats (in press) examination of implicit leadership theories over 20 years both found that, although the strength of masculine associations has lessened over time and differs somewhat across cultures and organizational contexts, leader stereotypes are still predominantly masculine. More generally, leader (and male) stereotypes have been characterized as largely agentic in nature (i.e., dominant, assertive, competitive) (Koenig et al., 2011). Table 2 summarizes the stereotypic leader/manager characteristics we identified in our review. Relationship between the IT stereotype, leader stereotype, and the CIO stereotype Both the IT stereotype and the leader stereotype can potentially apply to CIOs, meaning there are quite different possibilities regarding the content of a CIO stereotype. It is conceivable that one or other of these stereotypes dominates conceptions of CIOs or that elements from both stereotypes feature in perceivers’ impressions. Unfortunately, there is little work that directly addresses this question. However, what evidence and theorizing does exist would suggest that a CIO stereotype is likely to include elements of each of the relevant stereotypes. First, research on categorization has shown that objects are spontaneously categorized at the level that provides the greatest informational value (at the lowest cognitive effort). This is known as the “basic-level” of categorization (Lord et al., 1984; Mervis and Rosch, 1981). In the case of CIOs, the basic-level of categorization requires a link to both “IT” and “top management.” Without links to each of these superordinate categories, the concept of CIO would be incomplete. As such, we expect that characteristics of each of the superordinate categories (i.e., the stereotypes) will inform conceptions of CIOs. Second, in one of the few papers that has examined the effect of different applicable stereotypes, van Rijswijk and Ellemers (2002) found that, although contextual factors could make one stereotype more salient, people spontaneously combined elements from multiple stereotypes when there were no contextual factors that activated one particular stereotype. Third, perhaps most relevant to the current work, Eagly and Karau (2002) argue that perceivers blend information and expectations from the leader stereotype with other stereotypes that may also be applicable to the leader (in particular, gender stereotypes). Finally, although anecdotal, much has been said about CIOs’ challenges in the C-suite (Heller, 2012; Kaarst-Brown, 2005; Preston et al., 2008) and, in particular, that CIOs might be seen more as IT-service providers than strategic players (Cramm, 2010; Overby, 2005). Overall, these ideas suggest that a CIO stereotype is likely to include at least some elements of both the IT and leader stereotype and, therefore, some of the traits and attributes we hypothesize may negatively impact decisions regarding CIOs. More formally, we predict: 3 Although a distinction can be made between leaders and managers, research on the topic has generally used the terms “leader” and “manager” interchangeably when referring to these stereotypes. Because we aim to identify the range of possible associations, rather than make fine-grained distinctions between stereotypes, we also treat “leader” and “manager” stereotypes as equivalent.

5

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Table 2 Positive and negative traits of the leader stereotype. Positive attributes/traits

Negative attributes/traits

Able to leada f i Ambitiousa Articulateef Assertivea, confidenta, decisiveb f, desires responsibilitya i, strongc d g h Charismaticc b d g h, inspirationalb, visionaryb f Creativeh i Competentc b e, intelligentc d a e f g h i, objectivei, well-informedf i Dedicatedc d g h, determinede, hard-workinga, motivatedc, persistenta i, vigorousa Diplomaticb f, sensitivec d g h, people-orienteda, understandingc d e i Emotionally stablei Honeste, integritya b Self-relianta i

Aggressivei Autocraticb, tyrannicalc Criticale Dominantc d Masculinec d g h i

d g h

i

Notes. Attributes/traits loosely organized by theme. Whether traits are categorized as positive/negative can depend on context (Eagly and Karau, 2002) – traits listed as “negative” are typically classified as part of the leader “antiprototype” (Lord et al., 1984; Offermann and Coats, in press). a Chung-Herrera and Lankau (2005). b Den Hartog et al. (1999). c Epitropaki and Martin (2004). d Johnson et al. (2008). e Lord et al. (1984). f Martell et al. (1998). g Offermann et al. (1994). h Offermann and Coats (in press). i Schein (1973).

Hypothesis 1. The CIO stereotype includes elements of the IT stereotype (in addition to elements of the general leader stereotype). It is possible, and even likely, that the CIO stereotype will be biased toward elements of one or other of its component stereotypes (IT vs. leader). However, such a prediction is more specific than the current level of theorizing permits, so we leave this as an empirical question. Consequences of the CIO stereotype: bias in selection and performance judgments As previously noted, stereotypes affect judgment because they establish expectancies (often implicitly) regarding the likelihood that individual group members possess certain traits (i.e., the traits of the group) (Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). These expectations have been shown to influence judgment in at least two ways: they can directly affect beliefs about the traits and abilities of stereotyped individuals, and they can taint the interpretation of stereotyped individuals’ behavior and performance (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). In the first case, we argue that stereotypic beliefs about CIOs’ traits and abilities have the potential to bias the perceived suitability of CIOs for certain roles within the organization, that is, to bias organizational selection decisions. In the second case, we suggest that expectations based on a CIO stereotype might also be capable of biasing reactions to CIOs’ performance. We develop each of these predictions in more detail next. Selection decisions Strategic leadership roles in organizations have been characterized as requiring high-level thinking, organizational authority, responsibility, respect, and an ability to lead (Lord and Maher, 1991; Penney et al., 2015). These traits are highly incongruous with the traits associated with the IT stereotype (e.g., task-focused, technically-minded, introverted), which we expect informs, at least in part, the CIO stereotype. As such, we expect a misalignment between the stereotypic expectancies of CIOs and the traits deemed necessary for strategic contributions to the organization. In turn, we expect this to negatively bias perceptions of CIOs’ suitability for strategic initiatives. That is not to say that CIOs’ idiosyncratic traits will not affect perceptions of their suitability for a particular task as well. We would expect beliefs about the unique traits of a particular CIO to also influence judgments about their suitability. However, holding all such beliefs constant, we expect that the existence of a general CIO stereotype tends to bias judgment away from selecting CIOs for strategic roles. Research on other stereotypes has revealed similar findings. Eagly and colleagues (Eagly et al., 2000; Eagly and Karau, 2002), for example, have shown that stereotypic expectations of women, which indicate they are generally communal in nature (affectionate, nurturing, kind, etc.), reduce perceptions of women’s suitability for leadership positions because they are incongruous with typical beliefs about the traits necessary for successful leadership, which are largely agentic (dominant, assertive, competitive, etc.). These expectations also affect judgment even in the presence of individuated information (Heilman, 2012; Kunda, 1999; Kunda and Oleson, 1995). Overall, we predict: Hypothesis 2a. Decision makers will evaluate CIOs less favorably (than their C-level counterparts) for corporate strategic roles. The corollary of this prediction is that CIOs should be favored for roles that are congruent with the CIO stereotype. Note that this is 6

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

a critical distinction between the effects of a CIO stereotype versus a general prejudice against CIOs. Traditional views of prejudice would suggest that CIOs should simply experience more negative evaluations across contexts. In contrast, we argue that it is the misalignment between the CIO stereotype and the characteristics seen as necessary to succeed in certain roles that is harmful. Therefore, if CIOs are characterized as possessing traits associated with the IT stereotype (H1), we would predict a positive bias in perceptions of their suitability for operational roles. Hypothesis 2b. Decision makers will evaluate CIOs more favorably (than their C-level counterparts) for operational/tactical roles. We should note, however, that, even positive discrimination of this kind may be harmful to CIO aspirations if it reduces the likelihood they can occupy desired positions – a particularly insidious form of discrimination. Performance judgments Beyond affecting expectations of CIOs’ future performance, we further suggest that the CIO stereotype can bias evaluations of actual performance, especially in the context of perceived shortcomings in strategic leadership roles. A number of researchers have suggested that CIOs often appear to disproportionally bear the responsibility for organizations’ failures for projects involving IT, even when the cause is shared or lies elsewhere (Hirschheim et al., 2003; Peppard, 2010). As practitioners allege, “CIOs can do outstanding work yet still be blamed when business models sour, strategy shifts or top management changes” (Johnson, 2012, p. 1). One reason we suggest this can happen, consistent with our previous reasoning, is that CIOs may be deemed unsuitable for certain roles from the outset (in particular, strategic leadership roles). When in such roles, then, poor performance only affirms decision-makers stereotypic beliefs about CIOs. It buttresses their pre-existing beliefs, exacerbating whatever negative reactions they would ordinarily have to such performance. This is comparable to the effect of a belief bias or confirmation bias, in which preexisting beliefs are favored or strengthened by consistent observations (Kunda, 1999). Evidence that stereotypes can have such an effect has been found in other domains (Dunning and Sherman, 1997). Several studies, for example, have shown that minority leaders tend to be particularly harshly scrutinized and blamed when their organizations perform poorly (Brescoll et al., 2010; Ryan and Haslam, 2007). Many of these effects appear to occur for members of minority groups who have broken the glass ceiling (Chung-Herrera and Lankau, 2005) – a situation that, by definition, involves being assigned to a role that is incongruent with the stereotype. Overall, in the case of CIOs, we predict: Hypothesis 3. Stereotypic expectations of CIOs will exacerbate negative reactions toward poor performance in strategic leadership roles.

Overview of the studies We conducted three studies to test these hypotheses. The first study followed established procedures to determine the existence and nature of a CIO stereotype and contrasted the CIO stereotype with stereotypes of IT professionals and general C-level executives. Studies 2 and 3 used scenario experiments to determine if the CIO stereotype could bias organizational decisions regarding CIOs. Study 2 examined a promotion scenario to determine if CIOs would be perceived less suitable than other C-level executives for strategic leadership positions (i.e., glass ceiling) and more suitable for tactical, operational positions. Study 3 examined a performance evaluation scenario to determine if CIOs would be evaluated more harshly than their business counterparts for failure in a strategic leadership role (i.e., glass cliff4). For the studies, we recruited two sets of respondents. The first set consisted of undergraduate business students (i.e., freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors) from a major North American business school who volunteered to complete the studies in return for credit toward their course. The second set consisted of senior managers from large- and medium-sized organizations from diverse industries who were attending three different one-week executive education programs at the same business school. These managers came from a diverse range of industries, had more than 10 years of experience, and many were CEOs. The two sets of respondents were chosen to provide some indication of the development of the stereotype from students to managers. Details of the studies’ methodologies and results are presented below. Study 1: Exploration of the cio stereotype Method The first study was designed to assess the existence of an CIO stereotype and the nature of its content relative to other possible stereotypes, in particular, the leader stereotype and the IT stereotype. To examine this, we recruited a sample of 139 undergraduate business students (55% female) and a sample of 65 senior managers (40% female). Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate one of three groups – CIOs, IT professionals, or general C-level executives. All participants provided their perceptions of the group, first, in a free response task, and second, by providing their ratings across a series of trait descriptors. 4 The glass cliff refers to the phenomenon whereby minorities are likely to be found in leadership positions that are associated with a greater risk of failure and criticism as well as to be harshly scrutinized and blamed for poor outcomes (Ryan and Haslam, 2007).

7

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Free response procedure Participants were asked to list traits that they associated with their assigned group (i.e., CIO, IT professional, or C-level executive). Participants were instructed to think about the group as a whole, rather than specific individuals of the group known to them. The strength of this procedure is its ability to capture those traits that are spontaneously activated by consideration of the particular group (Madon, 1997; Niemann et al., 1994). As such, it provides insight into those traits that are most central to the stereotype. Trait rating procedure Following the free response task, participants were presented with a comprehensive list of traits and asked to indicate the extent to which each trait characterized their assigned group (i.e., CIO, IT professional, or C-level executive). This procedure complemented the free response procedure by assessing traits that participants may have failed to recall (Madon, 1997). The trait list was based initially on the Adjective Check List (ACL) (Gough and Heilbrun, 1983).5 Three independent raters (two experts in the IS field and one expert in psychology) scrutinized all 300 traits from the ACL to eliminate (1) any judged to be unrelated to the description of senior managers (e.g., attractive, bitter), and (2) any considered redundant (i.e., highly related to one or more other items). After group discussion of rater disagreement, the list was reduced to 54 traits with unanimous rater agreement. Ten additional traits of IT professionals and senior managers suggested in the literature (see Table 1 for references) and not present in the ACL were added to this list. Finally, a group of independent raters (five graduate students in business and two senior managers) selected traits they considered most relevant to each of the groups (i.e., CIO, IT professional and C-level executive), resulting in 34 unique traits that formed the final list. Participants in the study indicated how characteristic each trait was of the group they were considering (along five-point scales, where 1 = “very uncharacteristic”, 2 = “somewhat uncharacteristic”, 3 = “no more characteristic than any other professional group”, 4 = “somewhat characteristic”, and 5 = “very characteristic”). Participants were asked what “people in general” thought of the different groups, rather than what they thought. Past research has shown that people generally rely on their own perceptions to do this anyway, but that this helps reduce social desirability bias (Devine and Baker, 1991; Schneider and Bos, 2011). Results and discussion Free-response analysis In total, there were 566 free responses from the student sample (184 free responses for CIOs, n = 49; 194 for IT professionals, n = 47; and 188 for C-level executives, n = 43) and 291 free responses from the senior manager sample (90 for CIOs, n = 22; 97 for IT professionals, n = 21; 104 for C-level executives, n = 22). Three coders (two IS graduate students and one OB graduate student) developed a general coding scheme after evaluating a subset of responses. Coders then independently categorized each response (84.5% rater agreement) with discrepancies being resolved by discussion or removed where they could not be. Table 3 shows the list and frequency of categories of traits and characteristics for each group (CIO, IT professional, and C-level) broken down by sample (manager vs. student). Note that there were a number of additional categories that we do not report because they were unrelated to the focal stereotypical traits of an individual. These categories included free responses that were related to the organization (e.g., organizational efficiency), the role (e.g., level of pay, managing others, authority), and general features of IT work (e.g., handling data, fixing technology, software). The stereotype uniformity index, representing stereotype content consistency (Chang and Demyan, 2007; Devine and Elliot, 1995), is defined as the minimum number of categories that includes at least 50% of the free responses to a particular stereotype object. Across both samples, the stereotype index for CIOs included the trait categories: detail-oriented, geek/socially inept, innovative, and tech-savvy. These traits accounted for 50% and 42% of the manager and student sample responses respectively. The index for the student sample included two additional traits: leader and strategic. The stereotype index for IT professionals comprised three trait categories shared across samples: geek/socially inept, intelligent, and tech-savvy. These accounted for 40% and 52% of manager and student responses respectively. The index for the manager sample included two additional traits: confusing/difficult and detail-oriented. Finally, the stereotype index for C-level executives included four traits across samples: decision-maker, intelligent/ smart, leader, and strategic, accounting for 51% and 41% of manager and student responses respectively. The student sample index also included powerful. Chi-square tests were used to compare stereotypes of the three groups (CIOs, IT professionals, and C-level executives). Specifically, we compared frequencies across the top four stereotypic traits: detail-oriented, geek, tech-savvy, and leader/strategic (which included leader, powerful, and strategic). There were no significant differences between student and senior manager respondents (p > .05) so we report results from the combined sample. Analysis of the frequencies of traits across each group indicated significant differences in how each group was stereotyped (χ2 (6) = 304.47, p < .001). Follow-up analyses showed that CIOs were stereotyped differently than both C-level executives and IT professionals (χ2s (3) = 165.20 and 28.34 respectively, ps < .001). More specifically, CIOs were considered more detail-oriented, geeky, and tech-savvy than C-level executives and substantially less likely to possess leader traits. Relative to IT professionals, CIOs were considered equally detail-oriented and tech-savvy, less geeky, and more likely to possess leader characteristics. Overall, these results suggest that, although the CIO stereotype comprises elements of both the IT stereotype and general leader stereotype, it is more closely informed by the IT stereotype. 5 The ACL is a well-established clinical and personality research instrument widely used in the study of gender and occupational stereotypes (e.g., Schneider and Bos, 2011). This list has also been validated against the NEO Personality Inventory and significant and extensive item overlap is found between the scales (Gough and Heilbrun, 1983).

8

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Table 3 Frequency and percentage of free responses in each trait category across target group and sample. CIO

IT professional

C-level

Trait Category

Manager

Student

Manager

Student

Manager

Student

Ambitious Charismatic Confusing/Difficult Decision-maker Detail-oriented Experienced Geek/Socially inept Good communicator Hardworking Innovative Intelligent/Smart Leader Poor communicator Powerful Rigid Strategic Team player Tech-savvy

– – 4 (4.4%) – 13 (14.4%) 3 (2.2%) 8 (8.8%) – – 12 (13.3%) 4 (4.4%) – – – – – – 12 (13.3%)

– – – – 15 (8.2%) – 12 (6.5%) – – 6 (3.2%) – 10 (5.4%) – – – 5 (2.7%) – 45 (24.5%)

– – 7 (7.2%) – 9 (9.2%) – 12 (12.4%) – – 5 (5.1%) 11 (11.3%) – 4 (4.1%) – 4 (4.1%) – – 16 (16.5%)

– – –

8 (7.7%) 11 (10.6%) – 14 (13.5%) – 9 (8.7%) – – – – 12 (11.5%) 14 (13.5%) – 10 (9.6%) – 13 (12.5%) 10 (9.6%) –

6 (3.2%) 8 (4.3%) – 12 (6.4%) 5 (2.7%) – – 6 (3.2%) 5 (2.7%) 9 (3.7%) 17 (9%) 25 (13.3%) – 25 (13.3%) – 23 (8%) 10 (5.3%) –

15 (7.7%) – 39 (20.1%) – – 4 (2.1%) 21 (10.8%) – – – – – – 41 (16%)

Notes. Traits in bold are the fewest number required to account for 50% of the total number of responses for each target group (stereotype uniformity). Underlined traits are those that are in the stereotype uniformity index for both manager and student samples. Zero responses for a given category are indicated with a dash. Percentages in parentheses are in relation to the total number of responses to each target group (CIO, IT professional, C-level).

Trait-list analysis Consistent with prior research (Devine and Baker, 1991; Schneider and Bos, 2011), a trait was considered stereotypic if at least two-thirds of participants judged it to be either “very characteristic” or “somewhat characteristic.” This is considered to indicate a strong consensus of opinion. Table 4 shows the stereotypical traits associated with each group (CIOs, IT professionals, and C-level executives) for each sample. The pattern of findings here is very similar to the free-response analysis. CIOs were considered “techy”, “innovative”, “geeky”, “detail-oriented”, and “task-focused” by both managers and students. Managers also viewed CIOs as “nerdy” and “curious”. Students thought CIOs were also “resourceful”, “organized”, and “introverted”. With the exception of “innovative” and “curious” (in the manager sample), all of the traits ascribed to CIOs were also seen as characteristic of IT professionals. In other words, students and managers appeared to hold almost identical stereotypes of CIOs and IT professionals. None of these traits carried over to managers’ C-level stereotype. In the student sample, a number of them did (“innovative”, “organized”, “task-focused”, “resourceful”, and “detail-oriented”), although “techy”, “geek”, and “introvert” did not. Statistical comparisons of the mean trait ratings Table 4 Stereotypical CIO characteristics elicited from adjective list task. CIO n = 49

IT professional n = 47

C-level n = 43

Characteristic

%

Mean

%

Mean

%

Mean

Student sample Techy Detail-oriented Resourceful Task-focused Introvert Organized Innovative Geek

82.2% 80.5% 77.8% 75.0% 72.2% 69.0% 67.1% 67.1%

4.31 4.22 3.84 3.86 3.81 3.81 3.82 3.81

92.5% 96.3% 100% 77.4% 77.7% 74.0% 85.2% 67.1%

4.85* 4.74 4.37* 4.07 4.04 3.93 4.48* 3.81

31.4% 68.6% 88.5% 85.7% 11.5% 85.7% 74.3%

3.11* 4.06 4.43* 4.14 2.34* 4.26* 3.91 2.63*

Senior Manager Sample Techy Innovative Geek Detail-oriented Task-focused Curious Nerdy

85.8% 80.9% 76.2% 76.2% 76.2% 71.4% 66.7%

4.21 4.01 3.89 3.95 3.95 3.63 3.69

95.5% 54.6% 90.9% 81.8% 95.5% 63.7% 77.3%

4.72 3.51 4.39 4.43 4.33 3.91 4.12

14.3% 8.70% 39.1% 8.70% 43.4% 55.5% 56.5%4.30%

2.48* 3.62 2.21* 3.34 3.73 3.51 2.09*

Notes. Percentage refers to the percentage of participants who rated the attribute as “very” or “somewhat” characteristic. * Significantly different from CIO characteristic, p < .05. 9

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

across the three groups (CIOs, IT professionals, and C-level) confirmed these conclusions (see Table 3 for comparisons). Overall, and consistent with the free-response results, these results strongly imply a consensus in beliefs about CIOs’ traits and tendencies (i.e., a CIO stereotype). Moreover, these traits appeared to be perceived much closer to the traits of IT professionals than to C-level executives. This was especially pronounced among senior managers.

Investigating the consequences of the cio stereotype The purpose of our subsequent two studies was to investigate the effect of the CIO stereotype on two of the major personnel judgments: selection and performance. We chose these judgments for two primary reasons. First, they represent the broad ways in which we believe the CIO stereotype could exert a pernicious influence over the trajectory of CIOs’ careers: via their influence on the type of work to which CIOs are assigned, and their subsequent impact on reactions to CIOs’ performance in those roles. Second, these judgments correspond to two of the major ways in which stereotypes have been posited to influence observers’ behaviors: by establishing expectancies about the behavior of individuals based on their categorization into particular groups and by biasing reactions to group members’ behaviors (Dunning and Sherman, 1997; Kunda, 1999). In short, not only are these judgments likely to exert an important influence over CIOs’ fates, they correspond to two of the major ways in which stereotypes are known to influence observers’ judgments of, and behaviors toward, others. Both of the subsequent studies utilize an experimental methodology. Experiments involve the manipulation of the causal variable (s) of interest and a subsequent examination of the proposed consequence, the dependent variable. They are considered essential when the primary goal of the research is causal inference (Shadish et al., 2002; Spencer et al., 2005). Although they are not the only source of evidence that researchers use in theory testing, they are the only method that allows researchers to rule out the alternative possibilities that always exist when drawing cause-effect conclusions from (unmanipulated) correlational data (Shadish et al., 2002). As such, they are considered the highest standard available for evidence of causal relations (Shadish et al., 2002; Spencer et al., 2005). They are also the primary method that has been used to investigate and develop theory around stereotypes and related phenomenon (for discussion and examples see: Brigham, 1971; Duncan, 1976; Eagly and Karau, 2002; Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). We should also note that the causal variable of interest in the current work is simply the mental representation of CIOs, which, in both experiments, we examine by altering only the title of the person being considered in the situation studied (holding all other information constant). Because this variable (a person’s title) is equivalent to the form of this information in workplace settings, we would argue that our experiments provide a reasonable context to capture one of the (many) processes that is likely to occur in the workplace. In fact, this approach – varying the minimal information necessary to activate the hypothesized stereotype – is the same approach taken in research on gender and race prejudice, now known as the Goldberg paradigm (Eagly and Karau, 2002). The purpose of this approach is to isolate and test the causal influence of stereotypes. It does not allow us to comment on the overall effect of stereotypes in real-life settings amongst the multitude of other causal factors at play.6 Overall, our work is designed to address what we believe to be the necessary first step of assessing whether the CIO stereotype can exert a causal influence over decision-makers’ judgments and behaviors. The question of how much such a stereotype contributes to CIOs’ outcomes in reality is best left for future research.

Study 2: CIO stereotype and role congruence judgment The purpose of Study 2, our first experimental investigation, was to examine whether the CIO stereotype can affect judgments of CIOs’ suitability for particular tasks. In order to study this, we asked participants to imagine that they were selecting a senior member of their organization to chair an important committee. We created two different versions of the scenario (see Appendix for details). In one, the committee was described as having primarily tactical responsibilities. In the other, the committee was described as being responsible for higher-level, strategic decisions. Participants were asked to assess the suitability of three candidates: the CIO, the CMO, and the CFO. Our primary prediction was that participants’ stereotype of the CIO would bias selection decisions against the CIO in the case of the strategic committee (H2a) and in the CIO’s favor in the case of the tactical committee (H2b). The aim of this experiment was to provide evidence, not just that the CIO stereotype would bias selection decisions, but that it will do so in a manner consistent with the nature of the stereotype. CIOs should be perceived as less able to deal with higher-level, strategic issues, but more suitable for lower-level, tactical tasks. We used a between-subjects experimental design, which meant that participants saw only one of the two scenarios we constructed and were unaware that the other condition existed. This design helps disguise the purpose of the research from participants and avoids alerting them to the specific elements of the situation that we changed. The danger of this design is that it allows for the possibility that the two groups of participants may have differed in some way that affected their responses. In order to minimize this possibility, we used the accepted practice of randomly assigning participants to one of the scenarios that we constructed (Shadish et al., 2002).

6 It is possible that the effect of the CIO stereotype is moderated by factors present in “real-life” settings that are not present in our experiments. However, that does not undermine the specific conclusions of our experiments. It points to the need for future theorizing (and tests) regarding the relationship between stereotypes and other independent variables.

10

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Method One-hundred and three undergraduate business students (60% female) and 63 senior managers (41% female) were randomly assigned to assess the suitability of candidates for one of two different committee assignments: a tactical committee and a strategic committee, leading to a two-level between-subjects experimental design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (tactical vs. strategic) and asked to rank the suitability of three candidates: the CIO, the CMO, and the CFO; no additional information other than the candidate title was given. Participants were also told that the study was exploring, “first impressions of business professionals.” On the first page of the study, participants were presented with a brief scenario in which a CEO of a large organization wanted to select the most appropriate senior executive from the C-suite to join a committee that had either strategic responsibilities or tactical responsibilities and were asked to assist the CEO in this decision.

Dependent measures After participants read the scenario, they rank ordered the three candidates in terms of suitability for the committee. They then answered more specific questions designed to assess their perceptions of the extent to which each candidate was a “good fit” for the committee. Specifically, participants rated, along 5-point scales, the extent to which each candidate, “would be a ‘good fit’ for this committee” (1 = an extremely bad fit, 5 = an extremely good fit), “would be suitable for this committee” (1 = not suitable at all, 5 = extremely suitable), and “would be successful in this committee” (1 = not successful at all, 5 = extremely successful). The three items were combined into a single index of perceived fit for each candidate (αs = 0.89–0.95).

Results and discussion A chi-square test (χ2) was conducted to examine differences in the proportions of the top-ranked candidate for each committee. The analysis revealed no differences in the selection decisions of students and managers (χ2 = 1.14, p > .01). Inspection of the proportions in each sample confirmed that managers and students showed the same pattern of results, and tests within each groups revealed the same significant pattern of results as the overall analysis. The overall chi-square test indicated there were significant differences in which candidates were considered most suitable across the two committees (Fig. 1). Follow-up analyses showed that CIOs were selected less often than either CMOs or CFOs for the strategic committee (χ2 = 9.98 and 15.75, p < .01), making them the least preferred candidate in this context. In contrast, CIOs were selected more frequently than CMOs and CFOs for the tactical committee (χ2 = 35.27 and 1.82, ps < .01 and .10), making them the most preferred candidate. In short, CIOs appeared to be highly discriminated against in the context of a strategic-level task, but were preferentially chosen for a tactical-level task. We analyzed the perceived fit of each candidate using a 2 (Committee Type: Tactical vs. Strategic) × 2 (Sample: Managers vs. Students) × 3 (Candidate: CMO, CIO, CFO) repeated-measures ANOVA. Type of Committee and Sample were between-subjects factors in this analysis. However, each participant provided ratings for each of the candidates, making this a repeated-measures factor (i.e., a within-subjects factor). There was a significant interaction between Committee Type and Candidate, as expected (F(1, 149) = 35.48, p < .001). This did not differ across sample (i.e., the three-way interaction was not significant; F(1, 149) = 0.43, p > .50). Tests within each of the samples showed that the Committee Type by Candidate interaction remained significant in both the manager sample (F(2, 106) = 35.20, p < .001) and the student sample (F(2, 192) = 24.97, p < .001), providing additional evidence that the pattern of results did not differ across samples. Subsequent results are presented across the entire dataset. Follow-up analyses to the significant Committee Type by Candidate interaction showed that the CIO was considered a better fit for the tactical committee than the strategic committee (Ms = 4.01 vs. 3.13; F(1,149) = 43.04, p < .001). For the strategic committee, the CIO (M = 3.13) was considered a poorer fit than both the CMO (M = 3.76; F(1, 298) = 21.23, p < .001) and the CFO (M = 3.91; F(1, 298) = 32.62, p < .001). In contrast, the CIO was considered a better fit (M = 4.01) than both the CMO (M = 2.62; F(1, 298) = 118.98, p < .001) and the CFO (M = 3.83; F(1, 298) = 1.99, p < .20) for the tactical committee. In short, and consistent with the selection decisions, the CIO was considered to be the poorest fit of the three C-level executives for the strategic committee but the best fit for the tactical committee.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

CFO CMO CIO

Strategic

Tactical

Fig. 1. Proportion of participants selecting CIO, CFO, or CMO for strategic and tactical committees. 11

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Study 3: CIO stereotype and performance failure judgments The purpose of our final experiment was to test whether the effects of the CIO stereotype could extend to reactions to their performance. Specifically, we hypothesized that CIOs would face more negative reactions to poor performance in roles that were incongruous with the CIO stereotype (i.e., strategic leadership positions) (H3). We suggested that this bias would occur because the lack of fit between the CIO stereotype and the strategic initiative provides an obvious explanation for the failure (i.e., that it is specifically due to the CIO). In order to test this idea, we constructed an experiment in which we compared how people reacted to a CIO’s failure versus a CMO’s failure at a strategic initiative. Method Seventy-eight undergraduate business students (51% female) and 64 senior managers (24% female) were asked to decide what actions should be taken regarding a C-level executive based on the events described in a scenario. The study employed a 2 (Target: CIO vs. CMO) X 2 (Performance: Failure vs. Unknown) between-subjects design with random assignment of participants to each of the four conditions. The scenario described a situation in which a CIO or CMO (Target manipulation), named Chris, was appointed by the CEO to develop a new online strategy to add long-term value to the firm. The end of the scenario was varied such that the outcome had yet to be assessed (Performance Unknown) or the new strategy had produced harmful results for the firm (Performance Failure). A number of other details about the firm, the strategy, and Chris’s background were included in the scenario to make it as vivid and realistic as possible to participants. All of these details were identical across conditions (see Appendix for details). After reading the scenario, participants first rated the extent to which they thought Chris (as CIO or CMO) was qualified for the initiative. Participants indicated the extent to which they agreed that Chris was qualified, competent, knowledgeable, and capable, on 5-point scales, from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5). These four items were averaged into a single index of qualification (α = 0.81). Participants then rated the extent to which Chris should be penalized as a consequence of his performance. Specifically, they indicated (on 5-point scales from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”) whether, “Chris should be fired”, “Chris should get a pay cut”, and “Chris should get less responsibility.” These items were combined into a single index of punitive actions (α = 0.82). Results and discussion Both dependent variables were analyzed using 2 (Target) × 2 (Performance) × 2 (Sample: Student, Manager) between-subject ANOVAs. As expected, there were main effects of Target (F(1, 135) = 25.72, p < .001) and Performance (F(1, 135) = 17.64, p < .001) on perceptions of Chris’ qualifications for the job. The Performance main effect indicated that Chris (regardless of whether he was described as a CIO or CMO) was considered less qualified following failure than in the control condition (Ms = 3.42 vs. 3.77). More importantly, the Target main effect indicated that Chris was considered less qualified when he was described as being a CIO versus a CMO (Ms = 3.38 vs. 3.80) regardless of his performance (i.e., it did not interact with Performance) (F < 1). Examination of the means within each of the Control and Failure conditions confirmed this: Chris was considered less qualified as a CIO (vs. CMO) after he failed (Ms = 3.18 vs. 3.66, F(1, 135) = 17.18, p < .001), but he was also considered less qualified before the outcome of the project was even known (Ms = 3.58 vs. 3.95, F(1, 135) = 9.35, p < .01). Finally, these findings did not differ across samples, as indicated by no significant interactions involving Sample (all ps > .25) and identical, significant results within each sample (not reported for brevity). In short, being a CIO harmed the extent to which a person was considered qualified for a strategic project, regardless of whether the outcome of the project was yet known. The main effects of Target and Performance were replicated for the punishment measure (Table 5) – participants indicated they would punish failure (vs. control) (Ms = 2.70 vs. 2.17, F(1, 135) = 51.97, p < .001) and would be more likely to punish the CIO than the CMO (Ms = 2.74 vs. 2.13, F(1, 135) = 70.86, p < .001). In contrast to the qualifications measure, however, and as predicted, these two effects interacted (F(1, 135) = 38.43, p < .001) indicating punishment decisions depended on both the outcome and the person involved (CIO or CMO). Specifically, neither CIOs nor CMOs were likely to be punished before the outcome of Table 5 Perceptions of CIO and CMO qualification and punitive actions following failed strategic initiative (vs. Unknown Outcome). Performance Unknown

Failure

Dependent Measures

CIO

CMO

CIO

CMO

Student sample Qualification Punitive actions

3.77 (0.34) 2.20 (0.43)

4.13 (0.52) 2.14 (0.37)

3.30 (0.61) 3.42 (0.67)

3.74 (0.57) 2.15 (0.40)

Senior manager sample Qualification Punitive actions

3.39 (0.34) 2.12 (0.64)

3.77 (0.50) 1.81 (0.48)

3.07 (0.52) 3.23 (0.52)

3.57 (0.41) 2.06 (0.29)

Notes. Standard deviations shown in brackets. 12

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

their strategy was known (Ms = 2.25 vs. 2.09, F(1, 135) = 2.34, p > .10). However, CIOs were significantly more likely to be punished for failure than were CMOs (Ms = 3.23 vs. 2.16, F(1, 135) = 112.73, p < .001). Again, these effects did not differ across the two samples as indicated by the lack of any significant interactions involving sample (all ps > .45) and identical, significant results within each sample (not reported for brevity) General discussion This research finds evidence for a CIO stereotype held by both business students and experienced senior managers. The stereotype includes elements of both the IT stereotype and a general leader stereotype, although it is substantially biased toward the IT stereotype. CIOs are perceived as technologically knowledgeable and innovative, but also as highly detail-oriented and task-focused. Two experiments provided evidence that this stereotype was capable of biasing decisions involving CIOs. In the first, we found that CIOs were less preferred for strategic roles than their C-level counterparts. In the second experiment, CIOs were considered less qualified for a strategic initiative and were punished more harshly for mistakes when in that role. Despite the strategic importance of IT to organizational outcomes, CIOs seem to be viewed as problem solvers rather than business leaders, which may limit their opportunities to contribute to the strategic direction of their organization. Theoretical implications We make several contributions to the growing body of research on IS strategic leadership and the occupational stereotype literature. With respect to calls for theory-driven empirical research examining IS leadership (Preston et al., 2008), this study advances a new theoretical construct, the CIO stereotype, as a psychological mechanism that may contribute to organizational barriers that prevent CIOs from fully leveraging the business value of IT in their organizations. CIOs may face a glass ceiling, and glass cliff, rooted in the CIO stereotype that influences CIOs’ structural power in organizations, partnership with other members of the C-suite, and decision-making authority. Existing research in IS leadership has predominantly investigated individual-level factors focused on CIOs and their inadequacies (e.g., qualities of successful CIOs, business and IT knowledge acumen) and structural factors (e.g., IS-business misalignment, lack of social capital, IT trust, relationship with CEO). This focuses on psychological factors that may contribute to the individual and structural factors circumscribing the organizational role of CIOs. The current evidence for the existence of a CIO stereotype invites new insight and different interpretations of existing research. For example, perceptions of CIOs as “problem solvers not business leaders” may influence CIO trust, the formation of human capital, our present notion of IS strategic and cultural alignment, and the establishment and effect of power relationships within organizations. There are a number of theoretical impacts attributable to the existence of a CIO stereotype. First, as demonstrated, stereotyping CIOs as different from (and unequal to) other C-level executives has detrimental consequences. If a CIO is not categorized as a “leader”, he/she is not likely to be recognized as having potential and thus not given the opportunity to assume a strategic leadership role. Leadership stereotypicality thus affects attributions of causality and responsibility (Lord et al., 1984). For CIOs, developing mastery and influence in a strategic role is greatly influenced by the opportunities afforded them as it dictates their freedom to exercise decision making and to take action. And, although it is true that individual performance is a function of ability, motivation and opportunity (Boxall and Purcell, 2011), ability and motivation must await opportunity. Without opportunity to take initiative, CIOs will be judged ineffectual relative to other senior managers due to their perceived inability to “take charge”. Second, the consistency in responses between business students and senior managers with regard to the stereotype and its effects is striking. Despite greater work experience and numerous interactions with many different professional groups (including CIOs), senior managers appear to retain the same basic stereotype as students (who have likely never encountered a CIO). This seems inconsistent with contact hypothesis theory (Allport, 1979) – the idea that increased interaction with members of a stereotyped group reduces the strength and effect of the stereotype. However, it is consistent with subsequent work on subtyping (Kunda and Oleson, 1995), which suggests that people will often create a separate category, a subtype, to explain individuals who violate the general stereotype while leaving the overarching stereotype in tact. Subtypes, when they exist, should also impact decisions involving CIOs. The role of subtypes, alongside stereotypes, in decisions involving CIOs would be in informative avenue for future research. Third, stereotype-based performance expectations have a significant effect on information processing, prompting cognitive distortions that may contribute to bias in performance evaluations and responsibility/promotion decisions (Eagly and Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012). These cognitive distortions enable expectations to withstand disconfirming evidence by dictating what information is attended to, how it is interpreted, and what is (selectively) recalled. Each of these aspects has different consequences for job evaluations and decisions (Eagly and Karau, 2002). Because stereotypic performance expectations can bias attention, interpretation, and evaluators’ recall (e.g., other C-suite members), assessments of CIOs’ competence are likely to be negatively affected, limiting their opportunities for advancement and organizational rewards. The road ahead for CIOs will continue to be an uphill battle to escape the influence of such stereotypes. Our research also found evidence of functional background biases that can cause inequality perceptions at senior levels of the organization; specifically, the perception of CIOs as unequal members of the C-suite. The assertion of CIOs as “the last among equals” has been previously suggested (Applegate and Elam, 1992; Delisi et al., 2010; Peppard et al., 2011) and in some occasions rejected (King, 2011). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has examined it empirically. By examining CIO stereotyping and its effects, we advance our understanding of diversity management by identifying a stereotype-based mechanism in terms of functional background differentiation (e.g., accounting, marketing, HR, finance) that can create implicit hierarchies within groups (e.g., C13

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

suite). Most research on workforce diversity has examined stereotype-based mechanisms at high levels of the organizations in terms of gender, race and ethnic groups (also known as internal dimensions of diversity management) but little has been done on the functional level or the organizational dimension. In terms of research methodology contributions, our study highlights the importance of studying IS leadership using field experimental design to enhance the existing IT leadership literature. This methodology complements the insights derived from correlation studies by allowing us to draw probabilistic cause-effect conclusions regarding the influence of stereotypes on the CIO role. Moreover, there is evidence that studies using this methodology can effectively model the process that occurs in real settings in decisions concerning the target in question (Cleveland, 1991; Eagly and Karau, 2002), in this case, the CIO. Practical implications Research has suggested that when minorities believe they are being stereotyped negatively, they have three options to deal with these negative perceptions: they can ignore the negative stereotype; leave the stereotyped group (e.g., leave the organization, group); or work to change the stereotype (Carnegie and Napier, 2010). The option of leaving the group may be virtually impossible (e.g., ethnic and gender groupings) or considered to be undesirable (e.g., occupational groupings where a considerable amount of effort has been invested in becoming a member). Ignoring the negative stereotype, or even accepting and playing up to it, may be acceptable if significant costs do not flow from this. But members of a group burdened with a negative stereotype are more likely, if they wish to enhance their social status, to work to change the stereotype. CIOs face the same set of alternatives. A first technique that can potentially reduce stereotyping behavior is increasing awareness of stereotyping (Duguid and ThomasHunt, 2015). Our study helps to identify some of the organizational-related characteristics on which to educate managers, human resource professionals, and CIOs themselves with respect to social stereotypes of functional minority managers. Raising awareness of how stereotypes form and influence our perceptions may help to mitigate bias in decisions and to ease intergroup relations. For example, an important practice to reduce the impact of stereotypes is reducing ambiguity. The ambiguous and paradoxical role of the CIO has been previously discussed in the literature (e.g., Heller, 2012; Peppard et al., 2011). Therefore, in the absence of a clear definition of the role and of objective performance metrics to examine IT value, executives are then left with their perceptions to evaluate the CIO’s role and IT impacts. The more ambiguity surrounding the CIO role, the more perceptual measures (with potential cognitive distortions) are used in judging the CIO performance. Therefore, various structural and procedural changes should be addressed to reduce ambiguity around the role of the CIO in order to avoid the reliance on stereotypes. Different stories of CIOs who have embarked on the process of changing negative stereotypical beliefs ascribed to them and their IT function have been documented (Heller, 2012). Most of these CIOs have used three approaches: communication style, a valueadded approach, and managing expectations. Communication style refers to recognizing the innate power of language. These CIOs have curtailed their usage of technical jargon, borrowed metaphors directly from the business, downsized their standard reports, and even hired a communication specialist as a way of branding themselves and their units differently and more positively (Deloitte, 2014; Heller, 2012). A value-added approach refers to activities that convert IT performance directly to organizational outcomes. Some of these CIOs strive to find ways to bring new business to the organization (e.g., leverage relationships with the CMO to develop an IT-enabled channel strategy). Managing expectations refers to the prior assessment of the business in relation to IT. For instance, newly appointed CIOs often spend more time in operational duties at the beginning of their appointments and slowly start increasing time spent on strategic initiatives. This first impression of the CIO as an “operational manager” may be difficult to change, as these CIOs may be perceived as “not real CIOs”, thus leaving the general negative stereotype of CIOs intact. More powerful strategies for changing negative impressions of a brand, the IT brand, could ultimately impact the perceptions of those carrying it – IT professionals and CIOs. Ultimately, our findings shed light on the ongoing concerns regarding enrollments in IS programs. Research has shown that the stereotypes that people hold can influence their career choices (Rosenbloom et al., 2008). It is important that students have realistic perceptions of CIOs and their work because misleading representations lead to distorted judgments. For example, if CIOs are perceived to have fewer leadership qualities than their business counterparts and thus less likely to climb the corporate ladder, students may opt for other career paths. Based on our sample, it appears that students arrive at university with well-established stereotypes. This suggests that efforts to enhance the “IT brand” should target high school students. Limitations and directions for future research The limitations of our research must be noted. First, the use of trait and attribute ratings to assess stereotype content emphasizes the explicit process of stereotypes (Study 1). Implicit processes are also increasingly important in stereotyping. Individuals who explicitly disavow bias toward out-group members may fall prey to stereotyped judgments and behaviors toward these members due to the triggering of stereotypes at unconscious levels (Schneider, 2004). Stereotypes may thus exist and continue to bias perceptions at an implicit level, even if they are not present at an explicit level (Hinton, 2000; Kunda, 1999; Schneider, 2004). Although we measured the implicit process in Studies 2 and 3, the inclusion of more implicit cognition tests might capture even stronger stereotypes and effects. Future studies to examine implicit activation of stereotypes in assessing content and impact of CIO stereotypes using techniques such as the Implicit Association Test (e.g., Gawronski et al., 2003) might be a productive avenue. A simple comparative analysis within the senior manager sample size suggested that the structure of beliefs (i.e., stereotype content and impact) remains constant across organizations regardless of their level of IT. However, a more rigorous statistical analysis (e.g., moderation) was not conducted due to the sample size limitation. Future research could determine if these beliefs differ based 14

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

on the IT level within the organization. Do senior managers from high tech organizations possess different CIO stereotypical beliefs than low or medium tech organizations? Another interesting moderating analysis would be the strategic view of IT. Do organizations where senior managers view IT as a strategic differentiator also view CIOs as more competent in leadership skills and less as “techies”? The comparison between students and senior managers served as a proxy to examine the persistence of these beliefs over time. Another venue for future research is to investigate this persistence in natural settings. For example, a longitudinal study could investigate the resistance to change of stereotypical beliefs for newly appointed CIOs (and maybe for atypical or stereotype-disconfirming CIOs) in organizations that have traditionally viewed the CIO as a service provider. Also, it would be interesting to examine the organizational barriers facing the newly appointed CIO, what s/he does in order to overcome these barriers, and how long it takes to change those perceptions (if a change occurs). Ultimately, this research examined the CIO stereotype and its potential effects when activated and applied in the minds of perceivers. Another interesting area of research adopts the target’s perspective – what it feels like to be the target of stereotyping (Kunda, 1999), how the knowledge that others may be perceiving you through the lens of a negative stereotype might influence your understanding of their behavior toward you, and/or how being aware that people like you are expected to perform poorly might affect your performance. Adopting the CIO’s perspective would shed light on how stereotypes become enshrined and reinforced in the organizational environment through specific actions that CIOs take that ultimately make their strategic aspirations even less likely. Conclusion At the beginning of our paper, we noted the express reluctance of organizations to appoint CIOs to strategic roles despite the fact that IT is widely recognized as a competitive differentiator. Our research provides a plausible explanation for this apparent conundrum. Given the nature (i.e., content and persistence) of the CIO stereotype and its causal link to biased decision making in performance evaluation and promotion decisions by senior managers, we have reason to believe that these stereotypical beliefs influence the role of the CIO in organizations. Based on this, we believe that a program of concerted research to further explore the CIO stereotype and other potential stereotypes (e.g., gender, race) will prove extremely fruitful in our quest to understand the management of IT, the IT role, IT leadership and effective IT branding. Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2018.09. 002. References Allport, G.W., 1979. In: The Nature of Prejudice. Basic Books, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.2307/2087802. Applegate, L.M., Elam, J.J., 1992. New information systems leaders: a changing role in a changing world. MIS Q. 16, 469–489. Banker, R.D., Hu, N., Pavlou, P.A., Luftman, J., 2011. CIO reporting structure, strategic positioning, and firm performance. MIS Q. 35, 487. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 23044053. Boxall, P., Purcell, J., 2011. Strategy and Human Resource Management. Palgrave MacMillan, New York, NY. Brans, P., 2015. From CIO to CEO - What CIOs Must Do to Become CEOs [WWW Document]. CIO from IDG. URL https://www.cio.co.uk/cio-career/from-cio-ceo-whatcios-must-do-become-ceos-3626345/ (accessed 06.18.18). Brescoll, V.L., Dawson, E., Uhlmann, E.L., 2010. Hard won and easily lost: the fragile status of leaders in gender-stereotype-incongruent occupations. Psychol. Sci. 21, 1640–1642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384744. Brigham, J.C., 1971. Ethnic stereotypes. Psychol. Bull. 76, 15–38. Broadbent, M., Kitzis, E., 2005. The New CIO Leader: Setting the Agenda and Delivering Results. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Carnegie, G.D., Napier, C.J., 2010. Traditional accountants and business professionals: portraying the accounting profession after enron. Account. Organ. Soc. 35, 360–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2009.09.002. Cavallo, M.A., 2016. A New Digital CIO Must Emerge from Digital Economy Disruption [WWW Document]. CIO from IDG. URL https://www.cio.com/article/ 3141994/it-strategy/a-new-digital-cio-must-emerge-from-digital-economy-disruption.html (accessed 06.18.18). Chang, D.F., Demyan, A.L., 2007. Teachers’ stereotypes of asian, black, and white students. Sch. Psychol. Quart. 22, 91–114. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22. 2.91. Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S., Xia, W., 2010. Antecedents and effects of CIO supply-side and demand-side leadership: a staged maturity model. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27, 231–272. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270110. Chung-Herrera, B.G., Lankau, M.J., 2005. Are we there yet? An assessment of fit between stereotypes of minority managers and the successful-manager prototype. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35, 2029–2056. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02208.x. CIO, 2016. State of the CIO Survey. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105509. Cleveland, J.N., 1991. Using hypothetical and actual applicants in assessing person-organization fit: a methodological note. J. Appl. Psychol. 21, 1004–1011. Cramm, S., 2010. 8 Things We Hate about IT: How to Move Beyond the Frustrations to Form a New Partnership with IT. Harvard Business Press, Boston, MA. Dawson, G.S., Watson, R.T., 2011. Uncovering and testing archetypes of effective public sector CIOs. ACM Trans. Manage. Inf. Syst. 2, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1929916.1929921. Delisi, P.S., Moberg, D., Danielson, R., 2010. Why CIOs Are Last Among Equals [WWW Document]. Wall Str. J. URL https://www.wsj.com/articles/ SB10001424052748704320104575015430323427298 (accessed 06.18.18). Deloitte, 2014. Leadership Advice for Next-Generation CIOs [WWW Document]. Wall Str. J. URL http://deloitte.wsj.com/cio/2014/01/21/leadership-advice-for-nextgeneration-cios/ (accessed 06.18.18). Den Hartog, D.N., House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Ruiz-Quintanilla, S.A., Dorfman, P.W., 1999. Culture specific and cross-culturally generalizable implicit leadership theories: are attributes of charismatic/transformational leadership universally endorsed? Leadersh. Quart. 10, 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99) 00018-1. Devine, P.G., Baker, S.M., 1991. Measurement of racial stereotype subtyping. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291171007. Devine, P.G., Elliot, A.J., 1995. Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21, 1139–1150.

15

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Dugan, S., 2001. Confronting the Geek Within. InfoWorld 2 23, pp. 66–68. Duguid, M.M., Thomas-Hunt, M.C., 2015. Condoning stereotypes? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. J. Appl. Psychol. 100 (2), 343–359. Duncan, B.L., 1976. Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: testing the lower limits of stereotyping of blacks. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34, 590–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.34.4.590. Dunning, D., Sherman, D.A., 1997. Stereotypes and tacit inference. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.459. Eagly, A.H., Karau, S.J., 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.3. 573. Eagly, A.H., Wood, W., Diekman, A.B., 2000. Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: a current appraisal. In: Eckes, T., Trautner, H.M. (Eds.), The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender. Lawrence Elrbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 123–174. Enns, H.G., Ferratt, T.W., Prasad, J., 2006. Beyond stereotypes of IT professionals: implications for IT HR practices. Commun. ACM 49, 105–109. https://doi.org/10. 1145/1121949.1121956. Epitropaki, O., Martin, R., 2004. Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293. Farnall, O., 2003. Transformation of a stereotype: geeks, nerds, whiz kids, and hackers. In: Ross, S.D., Lester, P.M. (Eds.), Images That Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the Media. Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 233–240. García-Crespo, Á., Colomo-Palacios, R., Miguel-Gómez, J., Tovar-Caro, E., 2008. The IT crowd: are we stereotypes? IT Prof. 10, 24–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP. 2008.134. Gawronski, B., Ehrenberg, K., Banse, R., Zukova, J., Klauer, K.C., 2003. It’s in the mind of the beholder: the impact of stereotypic associations on category-based and individuating impression formation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00517-6. Gerth, A.B., Peppard, J., 2016. The dynamics of CIO derailment: how CIOs come undone and how to avoid it. Bus. Horiz. 59, 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor. 2015.09.001. Gough, H.G., Heilbrun, A.B., 1983. The Adjective Checklist Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press. Grant, K., Babin, R., Urbanik, G., 2015. Making the Career Move from CIO to CEO: The Inside View. In: Chen, J.Q., Xinghua, D., Hu, W., Zhang, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on IS Management and Evaluation. ACPIL, Shaanxi, China, pp. 49–66. Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., 1993. Job performance attributions and career advancement prospects: an examination of gender and race effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 55, 273–297. Grumen, G., 2016. CIOs May Finally Get a Seat at the Grown-up’s Table [WWW Document]. InfoWorld. https://www.infoworld.com/article/3139041/cio-role/ciosmay-finally-get-a-seat-at-the-grown-ups-table.html. Heilman, M.E., 2012. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32, 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2012.11.003. Heller, M., 2012. The CIO Paradox: Battling the Contradictions of IT Leadership. Bibliomotion, Brookline, MA. Hinton, P.R., 2000. Stereotypes, Cognition, and Culture. Psychology Press, New York, NY. Hirschheim, R., Porra, J., Parks, M.S., 2003. The evolution of the corporate IT function and the role of the CIO at Texaco: how do perceptions of IT’s performance get formed? ACM SIGMIS Database 34, 8–27. Johnson, M., 2012. What It Takes to Improve CIO Tenure [WWW Document]. CIO from IDG. URL https://www.cio.com/article/2391383/data-center/what-it-takesto-improve-cio-tenure.html (accessed 06.18.18). Johnson, S.K., Murphy, S.E., Zewdie, S., Reichard, R.J., 2008. The strong, sensitive type: effects of gender stereotypes and leadership prototypes on the evaluation of male and female leaders. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 106, 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.002. Kaarst-Brown, M.L., 2005. Understanding an organization’s view of the CIO: the role of assumptions about IT. MIS Quart. Exec. 4, 287–301. Karahanna, E., Preston, D.S., 2013. The effect of social capital of the relationship between the CIO and top management team on firm performance. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 30, 15–56. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222300101. Keen, P., 1997. It’s Time for IS to Learn Civility. Comput. World 86. Kendall, L., 2011. “White and Nerdy”: Computers, Race, and the Nerd Stereotype. J. Pop. Cult. 44, 505–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2011.00846.x. Kendall, L., 1999. “The Nerd Within”: mass media and the negotiation of identity among computer-using men. J. Mens. Stud. 7, 353–369. https://doi.org/10.3149/ jms.0703.353. King, J.L., 2011. CIO: concept is over. J. Inform. Technol. 26, 129–138. Koenig, A.M., Eagly, A.H., Mitchell, A.A., Ristikari, T., 2011. Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychol. Bull. 137, 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557. Kunda, Z., 1999. Social Cognition: Making Sense of People. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Kunda, Z., Oleson, K.C., 1995. Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68, 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.565. Lepore, D., Rockart, J., Earl, M.J., Thomas, T., McAteer, P., Elton, J., 2000. Are CIOs obsolete? Harv. Bus. Rev. 78, 56–63. Li, Y., Tan, C.H., 2013. Matching business strategy and CIO characteristics: the impact on organizational performance. J. Bus. Res. 66, 248–259. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jbusres.2012.07.017. Lord, R.G., Dinh, J.E., 2014. What have we learned that is critical perceptions and leader-performance. Ind. Organ. Psychol. 7, 158–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops. 12127. Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J., De Vader, C.L., 1984. A test of leadership categorization theory: internal structure, information processing and leadership perceptions. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 34, 343–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(84)90043-6. Lord, R.G., Maher, K.J., 1991. Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and Performance. Unwin Hyman Inc., Cambridge, MA. Madon, S., 1997. What do people believe about gay males? A study of stereotype content and strength. Sex Roles 37, 663–685. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936334. Martell, R.F., Parker, C., Emrich, C.G., Crawford, M.S., 1998. Sex stereotyping in the executive suite: “Much Ado About Something”. J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 13, 127–138. Mervis, C.B., Rosch, E., 1981. Categorization of natural objects. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513. Milton, L.P., 2003. An identity perspective on the propensity of high-tech talent to unionize. J. Labor Res. 24, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-003-1028-8. Mithas, S., Rust, R.T., 2016. How information technology strategy and investments influence firm performance: conjecture and empirical evidence. MIS Quart. 40, 223–245. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.1.10. Moore, J.E., Love, M.S., 2013. An examination of prestigious stigma: the case of the technology geek. In: Medlin, D. (Ed.), Integrations of Technology Utilization and Social Dynamics in Organizations. Information Science Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 48–73. Muse, D., 2015. 2015 State of the CIO: The Good, the Bad and the Scary [WWW Document]. CIO from IDG. URL https://www.cio.com/article/2866469/cio-role/ 2015-state-of-the-cio-the-good-the-bad-and-the-scary.html (accessed 06.18.18). Niemann, Y.F., Jennings, L., Rozelle, R.M., Baxter, J.C., Sullivan, E., 1994. Use of free response and cluster analysis to determine stereotypes of eight groups. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 379–390. Offermann, L.R., Coats, M.R., in press. Implicit theories of leadership: stability and change over two decades. Leadersh. Quart. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.003. Offermann, L.R., Kennedy, J.K., Wirtz, P.W., 1994. Implicit leadership theories: content, structure, and generalizability. Leadersh. Quart. 5, 43–58. https://doi.org/10. 1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1. Outlay, C., Ambrose, P., Chenoweth, J., 2012. Overcoming gender stereotype entry barriers to computing degree programs: the cybergirlz. J. Comput. Sci. Coll. 28, 33–38. Overby, S., 2005. Turning IT Doubters Into True Believers [WWW Document]. CIO from IDG. URL https://www.cio.com/article/2448719/business-alignment/ turning-it-doubters-into-true-believers.html (accessed 06.18.18).

16

Journal of Strategic Information Systems xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

P.A. Gonzalez et al.

Penney, S.A., Kelloway, E.K., O’Keefe, D., 2015. Trait theories of leadership. In: O’Boyle, I., Murray, D., Cummins, P. (Eds.), Leadership in Sport. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 19–33. Peppard, J., 2010. Unlocking the performance of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). Calif. Manage. Rev. 52, 73–99. Peppard, J., Edwards, C., Lambert, R., 2011. Clarifying the ambiquous role of the CIO. MIS Quart. Exec. 10, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570910926564. Pfleging, B., Zetlin, M., 2006. The Geek Gap: Why Business and Technology Professionals Don’t Understand Each Other and Why They Need Each Other to Survive. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY. Powell, G.N., Butterfield, D.A., 1997. Effect of race on promotions to top management in a federal department. Acad. Manage. J. 40, 112–128. https://doi.org/10. 2307/257022. Preston, D.S., Chen, D., Leidner, D.E., 2008. Examining the antecedents and consequences of CIO strategic decision-making authority: an empirical study. Decis. Sci. 39, 605–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00206.x. Rosenbloom, J.L., Ash, R.A., Dupont, B., Coder, L., 2008. Why are there so few women in information technology? Assessing the role of personality in career choices. J. Econ. Psychol. 29 (4), 543–554. Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A., 2007. The Glass Cliff: exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions. Acad. Manage. Rev. 32, 549–572. Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A., Hersby, M.D., Bongiorno, R., 2011. Think crisis-think female: the glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager-think male stereotype. J. Appl. Psychol. 96, 470–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022133. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., Grover, V., 2003. Shaping agility through digital options: reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quart. 27, 237–263. Schein, V.E., 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 57, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00288030. Schein, V.E., Mueller, R., 1992. Sex role stereotyping and requisite management characteristics: a cross cultural look. J. Organ. Behav. 13, 439–447. Schneider, D.J., 2004. The Psychology of Stereotyping. Guilford Press, New York, NY. Schneider, M.C., Bos, A.L., 2011. An exploration of the content of stereotypes of black politicians. Polit. Psychol. 32, 205–233. Schott, G., Selwyn, N., 2000. Examining the “Male, Antisocial” stereotype of high computer users. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 23, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.2190/V98R5ETX-W9LY-WD3J. Shadish, W., Cook, T., Campbell, D., 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. Spencer, S.J., Zanna, M.P., Fong, G.T., 2005. Establishing a causal chain: why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89, 845–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845. Stewart, G., 2002. Uncovering implicit leadership beliefs: variation between information technology (IT) executives and business executives in a public sector agency. Int. J. Organ. Behav. 5, 163–179. van Rijswijk, W., Ellemers, N., 2002. Context effects on the application of stereotype content to multiple categorizable targets. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202281008. Willcoxson, L., Chatham, R., 2006. Testing the accuracy of the IT stereotype: profiling IT managers’ personality and behavioural characteristics. Inform. Manage. 43, 697–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2004.04.009. Williams, L., 2006. Debunking the nerd stereotype with pair programming. Computer (Long. Beach. Calif) 39, 83–85. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2006.160.

17