1
 
Male vs. Female Leadership Styles – Is there a difference? by Ludwig Köhne and Michael Whittaker1 (University Paderborn) June 14th, 2010 for “Leadership – Strategy, Styles and Change” by Dr. T. Armbrüster Introduction
  In this paper we discuss the question whether there are differences between genders regarding leadership styles. First, we introduce traditional sex stereotypes and describe how men and women are seen by society. For a deeper understanding of the topic we also define the difference between leadership style and leadership behavior. To continue, we show how the stereotypes map to what is expected from society and also from subordinates. We recap the traditional framework regarding the gender gap topic and show some different types and results whether typical sex stereotypes have an influence on male or female leadership style or behavior. This traditional view is mostly influenced by military and industrial influence. In contrast to this, in the second part dealing with the more contemporary situation, we discuss whether it is true that “[t]he future of business depends on women” (Hefferman 2002 in Eagly and Carli 2003): We quickly describe the recent increase of women in leading positions and show possible reasons for this, namely that women have changed, prejudices decreased, and that the organizational and cultural environment developed in such a way that women benefit from the changes. Before we draw a conclusion and critically recap the results presented in this paper, there is a chapter about how gender differences and different leadership styles relate to stress and health in both male- and female-dominated industries. Stereotypes
  Men and women are different in their personalities, behaviors and needs. Different skills related to the gender of an individual can be distinguished. On the one hand, the typical male stereotype could be described as independent, objective and competitive. On the other hand, the typical female stereotype can be identified as sensitive, gentle and passive. (Brown 1979)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 mwhittak@campus.uni-paderborn.de

2
 
Those characteristics find also expression in male and female leadership style and behavior. It could be predicted that the leadership style of stereotypically masculine leaders is the achievement of organizational goals, while the leadership style of stereotypical feminine leaders emphasizes people and relationships. (Ashmore 1986) Below, we will see that these classical stereotypes can make women to adapt certain masculine characteristics in order to fulfill the male leadership role model. Talking about leadership it should be mentioned that two central expressions exist which first seem to be the same but in fact need a distinction: Leadership style and leadership behavior. Leadership style can be defined as “the underlying need structure of the leader which motivates his behavior in various leadership situations and infers the consistency of goals or needs over different situations” (Chapman 1975). Whereas the leadership behavior is: “The specific acts in which a leader engages during the course of directing and coordinating task oriented activities” (Chapman 1975). Shortly, this is what the leader is doing from day to day. The leadership behavior will change from situation to situation. Every leader will react different on specific situations, while the leadership style never changes. Leadership style is based on a combination of preferences, values and beliefs, as well as the organizational culture and norms and will always remain the same.
Traditional framework
  Due to the assumptions that male and female stereotypes have different characteristics, it could be predicted that those stereotypes have an influence on the leadership style and behavior of women and men. It is supposed that male and female leaders adapt their leadership style according to their stereotypical characteristics and there would be some conspicuous differences (Chapman 1975). That prediction is also the basis of the traditional leadership framework. It is very noticeable that women are facing different treatments in remuneration, employee development, employee satisfaction, selection and promotion policies (Terborg 1977). Those treatments stem from stereotyping females as ineffective leaders. It was very common to suppose that female leaders do not fulfill the needs and requirements of leadership

3
 
due to their stereotypical differences. Up until the middle of this century theorists had the opinion that leaders are born and not made and that masculine stereotypical characteristics are more appropriate for the needs and requirements of leadership (Brown 1979). The behavioral content of the male sex role like assertiveness or organizational activity seemed to be similar with how leadership behavior should be. A generally high level of performance output, which is composed of integrating or orienting statements, information, suggestions and opinions, precisely states leadership behavior. These behaviors seem to be more corresponding in male sex stereotypes rather than female stereotypes (Eskilson and Wiley 1976). It is also assumed that female leaders tend to take up more accommodative strategies in subordinate goal attainment and influencing group performance. They form coalitions in an accommodative manner, whereas male leaders are more exploitive, use coalitions only for their own individual advantages and are more authoritarian than their female counterparts. This plays a big role when the society expectations of how a leader should behave are taken into account. In the traditional framework “successful middle managers are perceived to possess characteristics, attitudes, and temperaments more commonly ascribed to men in general than to women in general” (Chapman 1975). Additionally, it was observed that leaders with a weak or poorly crystallized status have problems in terms of an ineffective and disruptive interaction, especially when the leader cannot fulfill the social behavior expectations. Typical female sex role expectations are not compatible with the expectations associated with the typical leader status. Due to that it is also difficult for women to reach a leader status because masculinity has traditionally a higher status in hierarchy than women and this automatically increases the probability to reach a higher status like a leader status (Eskilson and Wiley 1976). Those differences in social status and the social status expectations for individuals in higher positions can lead to prejudice behavior of subordinates against women. “Prejudice consists of unfair evaluation of a group of people based on stereotypical judgments of the group rather than the behavior or qualifications of its individual members“ (Eagly and Carli 2003).

4
 
The mentioned predictions and assumptions about stereotypes and their influence on the leadership style of male or female leaders are discussed and observed in several papers. There are three types of theoretical framework for leader-sex research, these are trait studies, style studies and contingency studies. Those three frameworks differ in their results, whether male and female stereotypes have influence on leadership style and leadership behavior. The trait studies are measuring attitudes toward leader characteristics and show great sexual tendencies among practicing managers and students. The style studies found only a sharp division in the stands of students and managers toward leader behavior. On the one hand the major part of practicing managers normally does not feel any difference of male and female leadership styles. But on the other hand the non-managers generally feel that there are differences. The contingency studies demonstrate nearly the same results like the style studies. Students support the traditional female stereotype, whereas practicing managers are feeling the opposite of the predictions of typical female stereotypes (Brown 1979). Ashmore shows that there are no differences between male and female leaders concerning the leadership style, but they differ in their leadership behavior. It is conspicuous that practicing female leaders are not encouraging more interpersonal relationship than their male counterparts. Additionally it is demonstrated that women are not more task orientated than male leaders (Ashmore 1986). That is the opposite of what the typical female stereotypes would predict (Chapman 1975). Finally there is a study that observes the five personality dimensions that consist of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness. It could be assumed that women and men differ in this personality dimensions and that those differences have an influence on male or female leadership styles and therefore on leadership success. But the opposite is the case: Gebert and Steinheim (1990) found out that personalities like extraversion or agreeableness have a no correlation between personality features and leadership success, whereas conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness reveal only a weak correlation (Armbrüster 2010).

5
 
Female leaders in a Twenty-first-Century Organization: A Contemporary View During the last decade the number of female CEOs in the Fortune 500 quintupled (Wolfe 2010), and, although this means that only 3% of USA’s biggest companies have a female boss, it is expected that more and more women will work in a leading position. The gender gap seems to decrease even faster on a national level: In 2002, almost half of the managerial and administrative positions in the US were held by women (Eagly and Carli 2003). Some even say “[m]en could become losers in a global economy that values mental power over might” (Collin 2003 in Eagly and Carli 2003). To address this point, in this chapter we question why this might be the case and try to find out the differences between the traditional companies and traditional stereotypes (see above) and the „organization of the future“ (Kotter 1996). Above we described how prejudices and bias negatively affect females as leaders, women seemed to be not masculine enough and so experienced difficulties both for applying for and working in a leading position. Given the increased number of female leaders, obviously women must have changed or the prejudices must have decreased in our society. This happened not only because of more liberal nurture and the women’s shift from domestic to paid labor, but also as a consequence of a changing leadership ideal, in the following we will explore all the aspects. Traditional leadership was authoritarian and based around power. Men rather fit into this stereotype than women (Eskilson and Wiley 1976). However, in our postindustrial society teamwork, cooperation and collaboration become more and more important (Senge 1994 in Eagly and Carli 2003). Kotter describes the “Twenty-first-Century Organization” as one with less bureaucracy, less rules and more open. Also, in modern companies responsibility and management is more spread across all levels in contrast to only the senior level and the leaders encourage, empower and support the employees (Kotter 1996). These changes are necessary to stay on the ball in the global and constantly growing competitive environment of today. Also new technologies and social changes require the revision of the classical leadership style in industrial firms. With these reduced hierarchies and the new more cooperative leadership role model, the old masculine stereotyped leader seems old-fashioned and not adequate. Women, in contrast, are stereotyped with a “feminine communal behavior, involving creating a sense of

6
 
community, empowering subordinates, and communicating and listening effectively” (Eagly and Carli 2003), that appears to be more consistent with the new role. Indeed, women tend to lead in a more cooperative and less authoritarian style. Due to this cultural change, literature concludes “for many managerial roles, the selection of women can increase organizations’ chances of obtaining leaders who are especially effective under modern conditions” (Eagly and Carli 2003). Another change in organizations might result from legislative novelties after World War II: Both in the United States (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967), in Germany (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz, see Bundesministeriums der Justiz 2006) and in many western countries, laws to prevent sex discrimination exist and can be enforced in court. These laws suppress some prejudices and enable woman to get into higher positions. Modern nurture and education also contributes supports women looking for work in a leading position. In school, classes are not split up anymore and an increasing number finishes with A-levels and starts undergraduate studies, so human capital and investments in human capital differences become more equal between men and women. Whereas old stereotype views suggest that this equalization also discriminates women, because their female qualities decrease, modern “social perceivers believe that women are becoming more masculine, particularly in agentic attributes, although not decreasing in feminine qualities” (Eagly and Carli 2003). This is also supported by the fact that male teams have a higher need for dominance by leading women (Bartol 1974) and – with the increasing number of female leaders – the obviously can satisfy this need. So, to sum up, not only the leadership roles and companies might have changed to become more cooperative and less hierarchical, but also the women – due to more liberal nurture and better education – have changed to be effective leaders in our modern society.
Leadership style changes and job stress As stated above, women – especially in leading positions – tend to turn somewhat more masculine, which especially occurs when female leaders work in a male-dominated company or industry (Eagly and Johnson 1990). Gardiner and Tiggemann tested whether this adaption of leadership style influences women’s mental health and stress negatively. In their study,

7
 
they investigated leadership style, mental health and stress levels2 of male and female managers (60 participants each, all from Australia). They also classified the managers’ companies into male- and female-dominated industries and then – within each industry, matched male and female managers. Correlational analyses were then run to find out whether stress and health relates to the leadership style and the industry. As a result, they found out that female leaders in male-dominated industries had similar leadership styles in contrast to female-dominated industries, where women had a more interpersonal leadership style than the men. Women also were more task-oriented than male leaders in male-dominant industries, but equally task-oriented in classic female industries. These findings correlated significantly (see Figure 1). Another important result was that women had higher job stress levels3 and also faced discrimination and tokenism. Especially regarding discrimination, “women reported more discrimination than men in feeling they have to perform better at their job and feel that they are treated less favorably and advance more slowly than men” (Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999). This effect is also the explanation for why the women’s stress levels were lower in female-dominated industries. Regarding mental health, the study reveals that there is no evidence that women have a worse mental health than men, but rather higher pressure and worse mental health can be found between both genders in male-dominated industries than in female-dominated ones. Another important result is that – in male-dominated industries – there is a negative correlation between an increasing interpersonal-oriented style and mental health: “the more interpersonally oriented their leadership style, the poorer their mental health” (Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999). An explanation might be that their interpersonal style seems more feministic and thus the women are discriminated more. Figure 2 reveals more insight into these correlations. The evidence presented in these papers not only gives hints that women adapt male behavior or suffer from increased stress or health problems but also shows that male-dominated industries in general stress both gender leaders more that female-dominated

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 They obtained the data using standardized questionnaires the participants filled out them selves and then computed several indexes to categorize the results. 3 We’d like to note that the authors did not have any information regarding stress influenced by factors like home and family.

8
 
industries. Interestingly, although literature agrees on the point that interpersonal oriented-leadership style is more efficient, productive and adequate in today’s world (see above), women with a lower interpersonal-leadership style (they might to choose to avoid discrimination) face less stress.
 
 
 Figure 1 (Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999)
 Figure 2 (Gardiner and Tiggemann 1999)
Conclusion
  The results presented in this paper regarding leadership style differences between men and women show very different outcomes. Leadership and expectations for good leaders have changed throughout the last decades:
Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved.

9
 
First, we showed the traditional framework, where traditional gender roles and stereotypes are assumed and masculine gender roles are congruent with the expectations of efficient leadership. Even subordinates have these stereotyped expectations. Interestingly, these expectations are also very common within the our modern society and both the major of the students – as presented in the literature and probably also at our university – have this traditional leadership role model in mind. However, managers in practice report no differences between male and female leadership styles. Recent reports also show that the bias against male or female leaders does not appear to be relevant in practice and on a high level, for example while comparing investment in companies (Wolfers 2006). Regardless whether these stereotypes are true or not, we, on the one hand, believe that women can adapt to the expected leadership styles and, on the other hand, think that leadership expectations have also changed over time. Subsequently, we present a more contemporary view on the topic, taking credit the recent increase – slightly, but noticeable – of female leaders. The existing literature describes multiple reasons, including changes in the female gender role model and changes in organizational culture better suiting women in search for a leading position. Obviously, there is a tendency that over time more and more women will hold those positions and the gender gap will decrease, but the rate this happens still seems to be very low. The common perception that a female leadership is a break through and very positive, as seen when firms appoint female CEOs or for example when Angela Merkel’s became the German chancellor in 2005, creates the impression that the gender gap already is eroding, but in reality – for example when looking at the CEO gender of the Fortune 500 – it is very visible and still big. The other side of the coin is that – as presented in the last chapter – more stress arises especially for women in male-dominated industries when they have to face high pressure and prejudices, regardless whether the act more female (interpersonal-oriented style) or more traditional (less interpersonal-oriented). This detail implicates a very serious question: When the literature agrees that interpersonal-oriented leadership is more efficient and successful, how can organizations encourage this leadership style and overcome the traditional stereotypes that might make their managers ill or even might reduce productivity? More research on this highly current topic – even often in mass-media news – is needed to find answers to this question.

10
 
References
  • Armbrüster, Thomas. Lecture notes: Leadership - Strategy, Styles and Change. Paderborn, Mai 2010. • Ashmore, R. D., Del Boca, F. K. & Wohlers, A. J. “The social psychology of female - male relations: A critical analysis of central concepts.” Academic Press, 1986: 69-119. • Bartol, Kathryn M. "Male versus Female Leaders: The Effect of Leader Need for Dominance on Follower Satisfaction." The Academy of Management Journal (Academy of Management) 17, no. 2 (June 1974): 225-233. • Brown, Stephen M. “Male Versus Female Leaders: A Comparison of Empirical Studies.” Sex Roles 5, no. 5 (1979): 595-611. • Bundesministeriums der Justiz. "Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz (AGG)." juris GmbH. August 14, 2006. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/agg/gesamt.pdf (accessed June 14, 2006). • Catalyst. Women CEOs of the Fortune 1000. May 01, 2010. http://www.catalyst.org/publication/322/women-ceos-of-the-fortune-1000 (accessed June 14, 2010). • Chapman, J. Brad. “Comparison of Male and Female Leadership Styles.” The Academy of Management Journal (Academy of Management) 18, no. 3 (September 1975): 645-650. • Eagly, A. H., and B. T. Johnson. "Gender and Leadership Style: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Bulletin, no. 111 (1990): 3-22. • Eagly, Alice H., and Linda L. Carli. “The female leadership advantage: An evaluation of the evidence.” The Leadership Quarterly, no. 14 (2003): 807-834. • Eskilson, Arlene, and Mary Glenn Wiley. “Sex Composition and Leadership in Small Groups.” Sociometry (American Sociological Association) 3, no. 39 (September 1976). • Gardiner, Maria, and Marika Tiggemann. “Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and mental health in male and female-dominated industries.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, no. 72 (1999): 301-315. • Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1996. • Lewis, Kristi M. “When Leaders Display Emotion: How Followers Respond to Negative Emotional Expression of Male and Female Leaders.” Journal of Organizational Behavior (John Wiley & Sons) 21, no. 2 (3 2000): 221-234. • Terborg, J. A., Peters, L. H., Ilgen, D. R., & Sweth, F. “Organizational and personal correlates of attitudes toward women as managers.” Academy of Management Journal, 1977: 89-100. • Wolfe, Lahle. A Decade of Women CEOs at FORTUNE 500 Companies. 2010. http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/womeninbusinessnew1/a/decade-women-ceos.htm?p=1 (accessed June 14, 2010). • Wolfers, Justin. "Diagnosing Discrimination: Stock Returns And CEO Gender ." Journal of the European Economic Association (European Economic Association) 2-3, no. 4 (April 2006): 531-541.