When considering the psychological antecedents of emotional labor, it is important to distinguish between the ability to practice it (Figure 1, path a) and the motivation to engage in it (Figure 1, path b and path c). One may be skilled at practicing emotional labor but not be particularly motivated to do so—either generally or in a specific context. Alternatively, one may desire to engage in emotional labor and fail miserably. This distinction is key to understanding how emotional labor practices relate to gender, as research suggests that women may be more skilled at behaviors relevant to emotional labor than men as well as more strongly motivated to practice them. Similarly, it is crucial to distinguish between emotional labor that springs from internal motivation (Figure 1, path b) and emotional labor that is externally motivated (Figure 1, path c): Whether one genuinely wishes to cater to others’ emotions (for instance, out of an empathic concern for others; Batson, 1987, 2011), or whether one feels an external demand to do so (e.g., due to formal work-role requirements; Hochschild, 1983; Grandey, 2000; Cheung and Tang, 2010).

These distinctions between ability, internal, and external motivation form the basis of three different routes in our theoretical model through which gender differences in emotional labor result in women’s stronger prosocial use of power. According to social role theory (Wood and Eagly, 2002; Eagly and Wood, 2012), gender differences and similarities in social behavior are the product of the disparate distribution of women and men into distinct social roles. For instance, women occupy the great majority of care-oriented roles in society. Such gendered distribution of labor, which is due in part to evolved physical differences between women and men (e.g., in terms of size, strength, reproductive activities), influences their behavior through various processes, including the creation of gender roles. These gender roles dictate different expectations for women and men—for example, the kinds of psychological characteristics they are believed to possess. Given that women tend to occupy care-oriented roles, they are expected to possess the psychological characteristics that are best suited to those roles, such as being highly communal, kind, cooperative, etc. These expectations, as well as the requirements of the specific roles that women and men occupy, shape their social behavior (see Eagly et al., 2000) via hormonal processes, socialization practices (i.e., how women and men are taught to behave from a young age), and social regulation (e.g., penalties and rewards for behaving in ways that contradict or uphold expectations, respectively). As we discuss below, gender differences have been identified in the ability, internal motivation, and external demands to practice emotional labor, which reflect the influence of gendered social roles (Wood and Eagly, 2002; Eagly and Wood, 2012).

Given the unique behavioral affordances of high-level roles (e.g., the prerogative to impose authority over others; Magee and Frasier, 2014), we argue that emotional labor in these roles translates into a more prosocial use of power. By “prosocial use of power,” we mean a broad range of actions intended to benefit people in the organizational context other than the powerholder (i.e., behaviors such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperation, etc.; Batson, 2012), which are supported by emotional labor practices that allow for the accurate detection and accommodation of others’ emotional needs. Prosocial attitudes and behaviors are generally valued as key features of effective leaders (e.g., Gerzema and D’Antonio, 2013, 2017; Gartzia and van Knippenberg, 2016). Indeed, promoting cooperative relationships with and among followers is often highlighted as an important leader function (De Cremer and van Knippenberg, 2002).

At the top of the hierarchy, emotional labor practices may translate into a leadership style that is more interpersonally oriented, one that draws less on dominance to influence others and, as a result, increases positive interpersonal behaviors among subordinates (Humphrey, 2012; Kakkar and Sivanathan, 2021). Emotional labor practices among managers and supervisors manifest in prosocial behaviors toward employees (e.g., helping and doing favors for subordinates), showing sensitivity to their views (e.g., not dominating a team interaction; listening and taking subordinates’ concerns into account when making decisions), and seeking to foster a positive, friendly work environment that is psychologically safe (e.g., avoid expressing anger or being too critical or too dominant; showing empathy; promoting cooperative relationships with and among followers). At the same time, those with decision-making power are often expected to self-regulate in order to maintain emotions at bay and keep a cool head to make decisions rationally—for example, to suppress feelings of empathy evoked by a specific individual in order to maximize aggregate outcomes for the group or organization they lead (e.g., Uhlmann et al., 2013). Thus, powerholders’ effective emotional labor practices entail walking a fine line between showing sensitivity and empathy and being accommodating, while at the same time not letting emotions cloud their judgment. These actions require those in high-power roles to carefully read others’ emotions and manage their own—often involving substantial self-regulation—in the service of effective communication and producing the right state of mind in others (i.e., emotional labor; Humphrey, 2012). All of these practices appear to be more common among high-power women compared to high-power men, as we describe next.

Whether due to a stronger ability (e.g., Garnefski et al., 2004), internal motivation (e.g., Ickes et al., 2000), or external demand (e.g., Heilman and Chen, 2005), we argue that women’s greater likelihood to practice emotional labor results in a more prosocial use of power when they wield it compared to men (Figure 1, path g). Powerholders who engage in emotional labor practices are often described as transformational leaders (Wolfram and Mohr, 2010; Vinkenburg et al., 2011) or as servant leaders (Barbuto and Gifford, 2010; Lemoine and Blum, 2021), who enact a communally oriented leadership style in which individual consideration (“seeing” and nurturing followers) is key. Research has consistently found that women are more likely than men to adopt these kinds of interpersonally oriented leadership styles (Eagly and Johnson, 1990; Eagly and Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). For example, an early study revealed that women showed more concern for others than men even when they occupied high-status organizational roles (Moskowitz et al., 1994). Meta-analytic evidence indicates that women in positions of authority are more likely than men in those positions to prioritize the maintenance of interpersonal relationships, to tend to the morale and welfare of others, or to show consideration for others—e.g., helping and doing favors for subordinates (van Engen and Willemsen, 2004). Other work suggests that women (but not men) in high-power roles are sensitive to other people’s views and perspectives, and less likely to dominate team interactions (Brescoll, 2011). Further supporting these trends, a study commissioned by LeanIn.org and McKinsey and Company (Thomas et al., 2021), which included responses from over 65,000 employees in 423 companies in the United States and Canada, revealed that female managers were more likely than male managers to provide emotional support to employees and to help them navigate work-life challenges. In the context of academia, surveys have found that female faculty perform significantly more uncompensated internal service than male faculty, acquiescing to participate in committee-work more often, even when controlling for rank (i.e., tenure; Guarino and Borden, 2017).

Thus, the existing evidence indicates that women behave in more prosocial ways than men when they have power. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for future investigations to examine this possibility more directly as well as the connection with emotional labor practices. Studies may test whether gender differences in emotion self-regulation among male and female powerholders predicts the latter’s stronger tendency to behave prosocially. Emotion regulation takes time and effortful control (Grandey, 2000); thus, studies could examine whether gender differences in powerholders’ prosocial behavior are eliminated in conditions that might impair emotional labor (e.g., under time constraints or cognitive load). Given that women are more skilled at emotional labor than men (Ickes et al., 2000; Garnefski et al., 2004; McRae et al., 2008; Cabello et al., 2016), future studies could also examine whether female powerholders respond better than male powerholders to emotional labor demands.

We propose that gender differences in the ability (e.g., Garnefski et al., 2004), internal motivation (e.g., Ickes et al., 2000), and external demands (e.g., Heilman and Chen, 2005) to practice emotional labor constitute three distinct pathways or routes through which gendered emotional labor practices and demands result in gender differences in the prosocial use of power. Of these three routes, the “ability” route (Figure 1, paths a, d, and g) is the most straightforward, as we describe below. We also propose that there are two other routes connecting gendered emotional labor practices with the prosocial use of power, which are less obvious but equally (or perhaps even more) influential: a “construal” route (Figure 1, paths b, h, and i) and a “pressure” route (Figure 1, paths c, f, and g).

Women’s more prosocial use of power is likely to confer many benefits for subordinates and organizations (Figure 1, path j). When those in powerful positions are interpersonally sensitive, subordinates directly reap the benefits—for example by being able to influence the decision-making process (De Wit et al., 2017). Organizations as a whole may benefit as well, as emotional labor is central to some of the key aspects of transformational leadership, like individualized consideration (Bass et al., 2003; Byrne et al., 2014), and it could foster a more socially responsible use of power (e.g., Chen et al., 2001). Similarly, in the context of political power and leadership, research has found that politicians’ tendency to practice emotional labor (for example, by employing courteous speech and avoiding incivility in debates) can be highly beneficial, reducing political polarization and increasing trust in politicians (Skytte, 2021).

For these reasons, women’s higher tendency than men to behave prosocially when they occupy high-power roles may confer important advantages on the people they lead and the organizations in which their power is embedded. Indeed, gender differences in leadership effectiveness tend to favor women over men (Eagly and Carli, 2003; Eagly et al., 2014; Offermann and Foley, 2020). Employee well-being tends to be higher in companies with more women in top positions (Thomas et al., 2021), and teams led by women tend to report more cohesion and cooperation (Post, 2015). Other research suggests that firms with more women in high-power roles are less likely to face discrimination lawsuits (Abebe and Dadanlar, 2021), have better financial performance (Glass and Cook, 2018; Hoobler et al., 2018), and engage in more socially responsible practices (e.g., Glass et al., 2016). In the political realm, a higher proportion of women in parliaments is associated with lower levels of corruption at the country level (Dollar et al., 2001; Swamy et al., 2001; Rivas, 2013). Although some of these findings may rely on observational data, raising the possibility of reverse causality, they converge with experimental studies that suggest a causal relationship. To illustrate, in a series of experiments, the mere presence of a female leader relative to a male leader caused people to anticipate fairer treatment within an organization and better personal outcomes because they associated stronger communal values in the organization when women occupied leadership roles (Joshi and Diekman, 2021). Similarly, when a hypothetical organization was in crisis, participants in two experiments were more likely to trust the organization (e.g., be willing to invest in it) when it was led by women than by men because they expected women to be more skilled at interpersonal emotion management (Post et al., 2019).

We argue that these advantages and benefits may stem from female leaders’ greater tendency to use their power in prosocial ways, and that male leaders (and the organizations that they lead) would also generally benefit from practicing more emotional labor. Regardless of their gender, powerholders who practice emotional labor can foster an environment in which employees and subordinates feel supported, are happier, and perform better (Thomas et al., 2021). Thus, although our focus in this article has been on the high standard for emotional labor against which female leaders are judged compared to male leaders (which is arguably unfair), perhaps a greater focus should be placed on identifying ways of increasing emotional labor among male leaders. Indeed, recent research indicates that both male and female leaders can enhance their effectiveness by enacting more communal behaviors that foster cooperation and trust (e.g., Gartzia and van Knippenberg, 2016; Hentschel et al., 2018; Gartzia and Baniandrés, 2019; Post et al., 2019). As more women attain high-power roles, their tendency to practice emotional labor might promote a shift in people’s implicit notions of leadership toward valuing communality as a central rather than peripheral aspect (Vial and Napier, 2018), one equally expected and rewarded in all leaders regardless of their gender.

Whereas powerful women’s emotional labor tends to benefit other people, we propose that practicing emotional labor also entails costs for individual powerholders (Figure 1, path k). Although women may be socialized to practice emotional labor more than men (Brody, 1993; Hibbard and Buhrmester, 1998; Shields, 2002; Chaplin et al., 2005) and may come to develop stronger emotional abilities than men (e.g., Ickes et al., 2000; Cabello et al., 2016), they may still experience the added external demand to practice emotional labor as a burden. If women in power are interpersonally sensitive because they genuinely care for others (i.e., due to an internal motivation to behave in prosocial ways), then they might feel authentic and experience a higher sense of well-being than when they lack power (Kifer et al., 2013), due to an enhanced felt ability to fulfill their communal goals (Keltner et al., 2003; Guinote, 2007, 2008; Diekman et al., 2011). However, to the extent that women in power feel pressured to perform emotional labor (i.e., when they do so to avoid penalties for behaving too dominantly; Phelan and Rudman, 2010), emotional labor may take a psychological toll and detract from their well-being, making the exercise of power exhausting and emotionally draining for women.

Caring for other people can be burdensome in general. Other-oriented emotions such as empathy and compassion (i.e., the emotions that underlie prosocial behavior; Batson, 2011) are cognitively costly and effortful, and people tend to avoid feeling these emotions when given the chance (Cameron and Payne, 2011; Cameron et al., 2019; Scheffer et al., 2021). More specifically, research has documented how emotional labor can be psychologically costly for those who practice it: The purposeful self-control and the suppression of felt emotions that are often involved in the more intrapersonal aspects of emotional labor (Grandey, 2000) have been linked with intensified negative feelings (Scott and Barnes, 2011); emotional dissonance (Hopp et al., 2010); a reduced sense of authenticity (Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002); impaired memory (Richards and Gross, 2000); diminished task performance (Hülsheger and Schewe, 2011); reduced job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2009; Cheung and Tang, 2010); worsened mental health stemming from emotional exhaustion, stress, and burnout (Grandey, 2000; Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002; Beal et al., 2006; Johnson and Spector, 2007); and physical illness, including high blood pressure and cancer (Grandey, 2000; Johnson and Spector, 2007; Hopp et al., 2010).

As this litany suggests, if female powerholders perform more emotional labor than their male counterparts, then they may also fail to realize some of the benefits that power is supposed to bestow on well-being (Kifer et al., 2013). Indeed, women leaders are more likely to be exhausted and chronically stressed than men in similar positions (Thomas et al., 2021). A recent study further revealed that moving up in organizational rank was associated with greater emotional benefits for men than for women—i.e., diminished negative feelings of frustration and discouragement (Taylor et al., 2021). Other research indicates that, compared to men, women anticipate a higher burden of responsibility from attaining a high-power position as well as other negative outcomes (e.g., stronger stress and anxiety; Gino et al., 2015). It is possible that these negative effects may be countered by a sense of fulfillment or personal reward when emotional labor is internally motivated; however, if strong expectations for powerful women to be prosocial create an added pressure for them to engage in emotional labor, the evidence suggests that women will pay a psychological and physical toll.

The internal motivation to do emotional labor and enact power more prosocially may keep women from attaining the most prestigious high-level positions. Indeed, women appear more interested in high-power roles when the communal aspects of leadership are emphasized (Schneider et al., 2016; Pate and Fox, 2018; Schneider and Bos, 2019), which makes leadership and femininity appear more congruous (see also Henningsen et al., 2021; and Hentschel et al., 2021). However, such communal attributes are viewed as compatible with leadership primarily in “female-typed” domains such as healthcare or education rather than “male-typed” domains such as technology or finance (Cowgill and Vial, 2022), which tend to be viewed as much more prestigious and to be valued more (Block et al., 2018). Moreover, emotional labor practices may hinder women’s advancement up the management ladder, getting them stuck in mid-levels (e.g., International Labour Office, Bureau for Employers’ Activities, 2019; Einarsdottir et al., 2018). Emotional labor and prosocial work take up leaders’ finite time and energy resources, but are often “invisible” and not usually rewarded in formal ways in organizational contexts (Steinberg, 1999; Guy and Newman, 2004; Bolino and Grant, 2016). Relational service work in academia (e.g., mentoring or doing special favors for students), which female faculty tend to perform at higher rates than male faculty (Tunguz, 2016; Guarino and Borden, 2017; Hanasono et al., 2018; Berheide et al., 2022), is a chief example of the draining effects of such (invisible) emotional labor: Such work takes limited time away from other activities (e.g., research) that are valued much more highly in promotion and tenure decisions. Indeed, experiments show that women are more likely to volunteer for, be asked to perform, and accept requests to do “low-promotability” tasks that benefit organizations but are unlikely to impact career advancement into more senior leadership roles (Babcock et al., 2017). Thus, emotional labor practices may promote gender segregation within leadership, feeding a two-tier system in which male managers are at the top and female managers are at the bottom.

By making the psychological experience of power overall less appealing for women, the stronger emotional labor demands that women face could discourage them from pursuing high-power roles, ultimately maintaining male dominance in these roles. Again, the difference between internal and external motivation becomes crucial to understanding this nuanced distinction: Whereas women may be intrinsically drawn to high-power roles in contexts that favor communal behavior (Schneider et al., 2016; Pate and Fox, 2018; Schneider and Bos, 2019), they may nevertheless resent the strong external pressure to practice emotional labor around the clock. Research suggests that power is most appealing when it is construed in terms of personal opportunities, and less so when it is construed in terms of responsibility toward others (Sassenberg et al., 2014). If women, relative to men, construe power in a way that entails less autonomy and more responsibility for others, and if women in power experience stronger demands to toe a fine emotional line when dealing with others, these added burdens may partly explain why women are less interested than men in high-power roles. Women may see power as more of a “chore” than men—and rightly so, based on what can be gleaned from the literature on women’s experiences with high power roles (e.g., Brescoll, 2016; Thomas et al., 2021). Power, saddled by strict emotional labor demands, may not be an attractive prospect.

In addition to making power less appealing to women or guiding women toward less prestigious high-level roles, emotional labor can further undermine gender equality by making it difficult for women to retain their power. Even when they attain a high-power role, emotional labor makes exercising that power more exhausting and personally draining for women than for men, which may encourage them to give up or opt out of these roles. As reviewed earlier, emotional labor is costly both psychologically (Richards and Gross, 2000; Brotheridge and Grandey, 2002; Beal et al., 2006; Hopp et al., 2010; Scott and Barnes, 2011) and physically (Grandey, 2000; Johnson and Spector, 2007; Hopp et al., 2010), and has a negative impact on work-related outcomes such as performance and job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2009; Cheung and Tang, 2010; Hülsheger and Schewe, 2011). Qualitative studies have revealed that the difficult task of expressing one’s authentic self while acquiescing to external expectations to perform emotional labor may drive women to opt out of leadership positions (Frkal and Criscione-Naylor, 2020). Additional research is needed to provide quantitative data to support these findings and to further examine the mechanisms through which emotional labor demands push women out of high-power roles, promoting gender segregation at the top of organizations.

Beyond the possibility that emotional labor demands may push women out of high-power roles, practicing emotional labor could make power more precarious, putting women at risk of losing it. One reason why women with power cannot simply ignore emotional labor demands from others is that the legitimacy of their power—the extent to which others feel that women deserve to be heeded as authorities—is usually in question (Vial et al., 2016). Even when they occupy a formal position in an organizational hierarchy that confers them with structural power and control over resources, it is more difficult for female authority figures than it is for men in the same positions to elicit status (i.e., respect, admiration, acceptance from others; Magee and Frasier, 2014). These status attributions are key to imbuing power with the kind of legitimacy that fosters cooperation from subordinates and followers (Tyler, 2002, 2006; Levi et al., 2009; Magee and Frasier, 2014). For female powerholders, foregoing emotional labor seems like a steadfast way to lose legitimacy in the eyes of others and, in turn, to be undermined and questioned (Butler and Geis, 1990; Koch, 2005).

Additionally, emotional labor demands may create a catch-22 for women. When they heed such demands, women may run the risk of having their power contested by being seen as inauthentic (Gardner et al., 2009) or too tentative (Forsyth et al., 1997; Bongiorno et al., 2014; Nandkeolyar et al., 2022). The strong communality implicitly conveyed by emotional labor may be seen as more suitable for the follower role than the leader role (Braun et al., 2017). Thus, women in high-power roles who engage in emotional labor may sometimes lose credibility as leaders, especially among male subordinates (Embry et al., 2008; Bongiorno et al., 2014) who have a stronger preference than female subordinates for dominant leaders (Koenig et al., 2011; Vial and Napier, 2018), and who overall appear less supportive of female leaders (e.g., Netchaeva et al., 2015; Vial et al., 2018). These inequalities in leader support contribute to gender segregation at the top of organizations.

Finally, expectations that women will practice emotional labor to a higher extent when they become leaders may result in them being appointed to highly precarious high-power roles—a phenomenon known as the “Glass Cliff” (Ryan and Haslam, 2005, 2007; Glass and Cook, 2016; Morgenroth et al., 2020). Emotional labor (e.g., responding to and managing others’ negative emotions) and a prosocial use of power (i.e., an interpersonally oriented leadership style) may be particularly relevant in crisis situations, making people more likely to support and promote women into high-level roles that are risky and uncertain (Ryan et al., 2011; Gartzia et al., 2012). These precarious appointments, however, can set female leaders up for failure—which may subsequently negatively impact the prospects of other aspiring women leaders. For example, Manzi and Heilman (2021) showed in a series of experiments that participants were less likely to appoint a female candidate to replace an unsuccessful female leader, whereas male candidates were judged independently from the previous leader’s performance. Thus, by encouraging the promotion of women into high-risk leadership positions, emotional labor demands and expectations may help maintain gender inequality in executive roles.