Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Purpose This study examines whether feminine-coded gender expression intensifies leadership-advancement penalties for male professional profiles perceived as gay in Ecuadorian organizations. It conceptualizes penalized visibility as additional devaluation when feminine-coded expression makes departure from heteronormative masculine leadership expectations more salient among profiles perceived as gay. Design/methodology/approach A 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial vignette experiment was conducted with 400 organizational professionals in Ecuador. Participants evaluated one male professional profile in which perceived sexual orientation and gender expression varied independently. Analyses were conducted in MATLAB R2019a using OLS models with HC3 robust standard errors, pairwise comparisons, bootstrap contrasts mediation analyses and robustness checks. Findings The gay sexual-orientation cue and feminine-coded expression each reduced leadership-advancement evaluations, and their interaction produced the strongest penalty. The feminine-coded profile perceived as gay received the lowest evaluations across outcomes. On the original metric, penalties were larger for informal career mechanisms than for promotion suitability; after standardization, the aggregate informal-mechanisms contrast remained robust. An auxiliary competence/professionalism check showed no meaningful condition differences but had low internal consistency. Mediation analyses yielded indirect effects consistent with roles for executive presence, masculine-norm alignment and leadership-role congruence, without establishing causal mediation. Originality/value The study distinguishes perceived gay sexual orientation from gender expression and shows how their interaction can shape leadership-advancement evaluations. It develops penalized visibility as an expression-based form of leadership disadvantage and extends LGBTQ + leadership research to internal career advancement in Ecuador.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sánchez-Rodríguez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: