Gender & Leadership: Does it really Matter? Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe & Melanie Brutsche Leadership Research & Development Ltd, UK Introduction Over 30 years ago, the introduction of Equal Opportunities legislation brought hope that the presence of women in the most senior and influential organisational positions, would become a normal feature of corporate life. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. Yet last year, a Business Week article revealed that US research showed that: on average, companies with the highest percentage of women among their top officers had a return on equity 35% higher that those with the fewest high-level women. Total return to shareholders was 34% higher for the companies with the most executive women, vs. those with the fewest. (Weisul, 2004). So why are there so few women at the top? Is it because women simply don t have the qualities required of modern leaders, or is it because current organisational assessment processes are biased in ways that reduce the entry of women to the most senior organisational position? Given the fact that every organisation needs to ensure that it is making the best use of the talent within it, combined with the fact that organisations can best meet the needs of their customers when they reflect the diversity of the populations they serve, this paper examines these questions, and discusses the implications for HR practice. Background Entry into the most senior positions in organisations, takes place as a result of an organisation s assessment processes, and these assessment processes are informed by notions of what is effective leadership. This body of literature then, is the starting point for examining factors affecting women s entry into the top posts. The Role of Gender in Leadership Research Like most, if not all of the research in management, leadership research has been gendered. Studies from the days of The Great Man/Trait Theories in the 1930s and 1940s, to the emergence of the new paradigm charismatic and transformational models which have dominated the last two decades, have been the studies of men, by men, however, the findings have been extrapolated to humanity in general. It is this body of research that informs organisational assessment processes, such as selection, promotion, and performance management activities. Thus, the basis for entry into higher, and more influential, echelons in organisations, is largely informed by what emerges from these studies as the received wisdom of leadership.
A Gender-inclusive model of leadership A few years ago, we decided to challenge this male hegemony, and embarked upon a fresh study of the nature of leadership, which had as one of its aims, to be as inclusive as possible with respect to the sample on whom the study was to be based. We began with the elicitation of constructs of leadership from samples of female and male managers and professional at all levels in UK public sector organisations, including a significant proportion of individuals from various minority ethnic groups, and from these developed a pilot questionnaire, which was distributed to over 600 organisations. Analyses of the responses from over 3,500 individuals, enabled us to create the first truly gender-inclusive model of leadership ((Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2000, 2002a,b, 2003, 2005). This model turned out to be of a fundamentally different tenor from the existing US-developed new paradigm models of charismatic leadership. Rather than the notion of leader as role model, our model emerged as leader as servant and partner, with quasi-heroic charismatic elements being demoted to a much lower position of importance, and of a very different tenor from heroic notions. The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ ) 360- feedback instrument was then created (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001; Alban- Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2002a,b). It is the data from the development of this questionnaire, which forms the body of our research base examining whether there appear to be gender differences in approaches to leadership. But first some background on the topic of gender and leadership style. Gender & Leadership Style Are there gender differences in leadership style? The conclusions from the literature are equivocal, and this is in part due to the different instruments & dimensions against which leadership is measured. Some early studies, for example, have found that with respect to measurements of women and men on the autocratic democratic dimension of leadership, women are considerably more democratic than men, in general (Eagly & Johnson, 1990), although some writers believe that these differences are diminishing (e.g. Komives, 1991). The emergence of the new paradigm models of charismatic, visionary, and transformational leadership in the late 1970s and early 1980s, brought new instruments and dimensions of behaviour to assess, including most importantly, Bass & Avolio s Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass & Avolio, 1990, 1995), which assessed transformational, transactional, management-by-exception, and laissez-faire styles. The first major study which described findings relating to gender and leadership style in relation to the new paradigm model of transformational leadership, was conducted by US professor Judy Rosener (1990). She caused a significant stir in the literature when she asserted in her Harvard Business Review article Ways women lead, based on use of the MLQ with female and male senior managers in US corporations, that women were, in general, more transformational in style, and men, in general, more transactional in style. However, the study was criticised for making these assertions on the basis of self-ratings of leadership style. This criticism raises a legitimate point, since research on multi-rater/360- feedback instruments, has shown that self-ratings are generally speaking, not significantly related to co-worker ratings (e.g. Harris & Schaubroeck, 1998; Church, 1998).
Nonetheless, whilst accepting the basis of this criticism, Alimo-Metcalfe (1994), has raised the question as to why the females in Rosener s study rated themselves as more transformational, and the males rated themselves as more transactional? She responds to her own question, with the suggestion that the self-ratings might well have been reflecting gender differences in notions of what is the nature of desirable leadership behaviours, and she provides examples of two UK studies investigating the nature of leadership, which found similar gender differences in how leadership was construed (Sparrow & Rigg, 1993; Alimo- Metcalfe, 1995). The implications for women of gender differences in notions of what is leadership, are considerable, given that the most senior levels of management in most organisations are dominated by males. Presumably this male bias can affect the criteria for selection, the behavioural guidelines against which women will be rated in a selection process, appraisal and performance evaluation activities, and promotional schemes (Alimo- Metcalfe, 1994)? Leading aside the implications of gendered notions of leadership, let us return to the question as to whether there are perceived differences in the leadership style of women and men, in general, from the point of view of observers? The Assessment of Leadership Using 360 /Multi-Rater Feedback Processes Given the emphasis that transformational leadership ascribes to the impact of a manager's behaviour on their staff, it is not surprising that any leadership development process should involve direct reports assessments of their manager's style and its impact on their motivation, satisfaction and performance. Thus, the notion of 360 /multi-rater feedback (MRF) was introduced into organisations. The process of 360 /MRF might be based on the ratings of managers' competencies, qualities, personal dispositional dimensions, or leadership style. Gender, Leadership, and 360 /Multi-Rater Feedback As was mentioned above briefly, most research findings state that managers self ratings of effectiveness tend not to be related to those of their co-workers; in general, managers tend to rate themselves more effective than do their work-place colleagues. But most studies have not included sex of managers as a variable either because this variable was disregarded, or because there were few females in the samples studied. However, of those which have included sex of manager as a variable, some have found that women rate themselves lower than their 'others' rate them (e.g., Fletcher, 1998; Wohlers & London, 1989), and lower than their boss rated them (Wohlers & London, op.cit.). Studies have also found that there is higher agreement between female managers' self-ratings and their staff s/direct reports ratings of them than was the case for male managers (London & Wohlers, 1991; Wohlers & London,1989). The question here, however, is: do findings from 360/multi-rater feedback, reveal whether there are gender differences in ratings of leadership effectiveness? Fortunately, there are a few studies available. For example, Church (1998), found that: "the trend (is)for women managers to (receive) slightly higher or better ratings overall more specifically, women managers were more consistently significantly rated by their direct reports as being more adept at the communicative and facilitative aspects of
managerial behaviour (e.g., providing clarity, communicating openly, ensuring participation) as well as some of the more leadership or charismatic related aspects (e.g., standing up for principles, inspiring others, taking appropriate actions regarding poor performance) compared with male managers. Peers, on the other hand, rated women managers as being more encouraging of new ideas and focussed on the development needs of their direct reports, compared with male managers. Clearly, among the present organisation, women managers were seen as being more communicative, effective and inspiring compared with their male counterparts" (p.4). With respect to how female and male managers were rated by their direct reports in relation to transformational and transactional leadership styles, a study by Bass, Avolio, and Atwater (1996) itself based on data collected in 3 studies which used the MLQ, concluded that data from the three studies.. "represent the first substantial empirical investigations of sex differences in leadership style including laissez-faire, transactional and transformational leadership measures" (p.24). "women leaders were rated by both their female and male direct reports as displaying certain key aspects of transformational leadership (i.e., charisma, individualised consideration) more frequently than men" (p.5). and " female leaders were generally rated higher (by followers both randomly selected and those chosen by the leader) on leadership factors that have been shown to predict individual, group, and organisational performance" (p.26). In their discussion of the findings, the authors suggest that there appears to be an increase in the findings showing that women are more effective at leadership than men, which may be due, at least in part: - to societal shifts in socialisation and education; - to organizational shifts towards more attention to the needs of its human resources - to the larger number of female managers now available for study; - and to the fact that previous research did not measure transformational leadership (p. 26). But we now ask, how might women and men compare in their use of leadership style on a questionnaire which was developed from an inclusive study of the nature of transformational leadership? In other words, on the instrument which emerged from our investigation of leadership, which included women and men, and people from different ethnic backgrounds, and from various levels in the organisation, and from the perspective of the ultimate arbiters of leadership namely, the staff of managers the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ)? We were also interested in investigating whether there were differences in the impact of leadership style on managers direct reports, on psychological outcome variables, such as their motivation, job satisfaction, organisational commitment, etc.. The authors regarded this aspect of investigation as crucial in exploring gender and leadership style, however, there is not sufficient space in this paper to describe this aspect of the research, although we have published several papers describing our findings (e.g. Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2003, 2005) which are available from the 1 st author.
The Objectives of the Study The present study intended to investigate: (1) whether direct reports anonymous ratings of the leadership style of their senior female and male line managers in a large UK organisation, namely, the British National Health Service (NHS), were significantly different on the 14 transformational dimensions of a leadership questionnaire developed by a gender-inclusive sampling methodology (these 14 dimensions of transformational leadership are described in Figure 1); (2) whether the ratings of leadership style of the female and male managers differed by the sex of the subordinate rating them; (3) whether the leadership style of the women and men in the sample appeared to impact differently on a range of psychological outcome measures, and whether sex and level of direct report significantly affected the impact (now the subject of a separate paper. For information, please contact 1 st author). The Method The sample for this study comprised the 2013 female and male managers at middle to senior management level who completed the pilot Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ). A fuller description of the methodology is found in Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban- Metcalfe (2000; 2001). Comparisons of mean scores on each of the scales by the same- and opposite sex rater were undertaken. The Results Table 1 shows the results. Clear patterns emerged from the data: (Table 1 about here) (1) when data from female and male direct reports rating their boss were combined, female bosses were rated higher than male bosses on all of the dimensions, of which 11 out of the differences were significant. Middle managers rating their bosses/line managers (2) When the raters are divided by sex and level, the male middle level managers were seen to rate senior female line managers higher than the males on all the 14 dimensions, of which 13 of the 14 differences were significant. (3) Female middle level managers rated female senior managers higher on 9 of the 14. On none of the remaining dimensions were male senior managers rated higher than females. Senior managers rating their bosses/line managers
When the ratings of the senior managers rating their managers were examined, by gender of rater and ratee, the picture was very different. (1) Amongst the male senior managers rating their managers, no significant differences emerged in how they rated females and males. (2) For the female senior managers rating their managers, only two significant differences emerged. Female top managers were rated higher on the dimensions labelled Showing Concern for others, and Resolving complex problems. The data may be interpreted as suggesting that whilst female senior managers are perceived as more transformational than their male colleagues, females at top levels are not perceived to be more transformational, with the exception of two dimensions of leadership, Showing Genuine Concern, and Resolving Complex Problems, and this was only true for female raters. It should be noted that Showing Genuine Concern was found to be the most important leadership dimension measured by the TLQ, as it explains more than twice the variance contributed by that provided by the remaining 13 scales of the TLQ (Alimo-Metcalfe & Alban-Metcalfe, 2001). It is also the most important predictor of the 10 dependent variables, or Leadership Impact Measures assessed by the TLQ (Alban-Metcalfe & Alimo-Metcalfe, 2000a,b). These include: reduced stress, increased motivation, increased motivation to achieve beyond expectations, job satisfaction, organisation commitment, etc.. 1 Possible explanations: Why are females in senior positions rated more transformational than male managers, and why do most of these differences disappear at top levels of the organisation? In relation to our findings, only the female senior managers perceived differences in the leadership style of their bosses, and these were only on two of the 14 dimensions of leadership assessed, albeit that one of the differences Showing Genuine Concern is the most important dimension of leadership measured by the TLQ. This might suggest that, generally speaking, top managers of both sexes are either selected less for their transformational behaviours, and more for their transactional (managerial command and control) behaviours, or that they become socialised by organisational influences at the top of their organisation. Questions might also arise, such as: - Is there a generational-related cultural gap in the sample of managers? - Do top and senior managers become socialised into internalising different value systems with respect to leadership style? - Is being seen as predominantly transactional in one s behaviour a role requirement of being promoted into a top management position? - Are the selection criteria for top positions biased towards the style of leadership of the dominant group, i.e. white males? - Is only transactional behaviour rewarded in top positions? 1 More details of the Leadership Impact Measures can be obtained from the 1 st author
- Do women and men act like their transactional peers/colleagues? - Does the culture at the top and senior levels require the adoption of an almost exclusively transactional style? - Do male and female direct reports perceive leadership behaviours differently when rating the effectiveness of the most senior managers in an organisation? Implications for HR Professionals & their Organisations The implications for organisations, and HR professionals, are immense. There is substantial research which supports the notion that the transformational style is significantly more effective than the transactional style alone (e.g. Bass, 1998). But those in top positions who are the gatekeepers by virtue of playing key roles in promoting and selecting managers at top levels, are likely to be male (90% of such posts are held by men in the UK), and therefore, may be more transactional. How can we change the attitudes of top managers, and what specifically can HR professionals do to ensure that sex-role stereotyping does not prejudice females, or males with more transformational styles? First, there needs to be greater emphasis on education in organisations, in relation to the nature of leadership, and an awareness that the received wisdom has been based on predominantly US white male perceptions. These models may not generalise to the specific organisation in which it has been adopted. An opportunity to explore these models, and their relevance to a particular organisation, can be achieved by including this topic on leadership seminars, or development programmes, and to create opportunities for reflection, and discussion. In addition, to increase engagement, conducting small surveys and exercises, such as focus groups, with managers in one s organisation, as to the nature of effective leadership behaviours experienced, is a valuable start, and might lead to questioning of status quo models. It is essential to ensure that such surveys are as inclusive by sex (and ethnicity), so that the views of any one group do not dominate. In relation to the design of recruitment processes, HR professionals can try to ensure that those from whom the criteria for the post are elicited, include an inclusive sample of stakeholders, rather than simply seeking this information from the current senior and top managers, which is highly likely to be self-perpetuating. Research has shown that bosses are more likely to emphasise the transactional and technical aspects of a job (e.g. Hogan & Hogan, 2004). Direct reports (who are more likely to mention transformational characteristics), should be included in this group, as well as peers, clients, and others with whom the manager shall be working. The design of assessment activities, including the types of questions used by selection panels, exercises to be included in assessment (and development) centres, and guidelines for assessors, should include a combination of competencies, and transformational ways of employing them, when appropriate. Training for assessors in a recruitment process should ensure that all parties are familiar with sources of gender bias, and the overall chair/director of the assessment process should be very familiar with such phenomena, so as to safeguard the process from bias.
Appraisal practices should be scrutinised to check that the organisation is emphasising both the competencies and the transformational behaviours of leadership, when reviewing performance and identifying areas of strength and development. Any 360/multi-rater feedback instrument adopted should be checked for potential bias in relation to transactional, rather than transformational behaviours. The model of transformational leadership should be scrutinised for its validity for the organisation, and whether it is fit for purpose. Performance management frameworks should be similarly inspected, as should other methods for supporting leadership effectiveness in the organisation. Concluding points Every organisation desperately needs to be sure that it is embracing and nurturing the talents of all its employees; it also needs to be sure that the composition of its managers, at all levels, reflects the diversity of the society it serves. There has undoubtedly been a male bias with respect to our understanding of what effective leadership looks like, with the result that the human resources at the organisation s disposal are not fully capitalised on. This male bias becomes insidious as it impacts on assessment, development, promotional and performance frameworks. HR professionals play a key, if not the key role in influencing change for the better. Times are changing, and in line with this, so are our notions of leadership. Those organisations that grasp the challenge of selecting, promoting, and developing the most appropriate form of leadership, and that are open-minded and informed as to how to identify the barriers that currently exist to identifying talent, will undoubtedly reap the benefits. References Alban-Metcalfe, R. J. & Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000a). An analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 8, 3, 158-175.
Alban-Metcalfe, R.J. & Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (2000b). The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): A convergent and discriminant validity study. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 21, 5, 280-296. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1994). Gender bias in the selection and assessment of women in management. In Davidson, M.J. and Burke, R.J. (Eds), Women in Management: Current Research Issues. London: Paul Chapman. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1995). 'An investigation of female and male constructs of leadership and empowerment'. Women in Management Review, 10, 2,3-8. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban Metcalfe, R. J. (2000). Heaven can wait. Health Service Journal, October 12 th, 26-29. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban Metcalfe, R. J. (2001). 'The development of a new transformational leadership questionnaire', The Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74, 1-27. Alimo-Metcalfe, B.& Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2003). 'Under the influence, People Management, March 6 th, 32-35. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. & Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2005). Leadership : Time for a new direction?. Leadership, 1, 1, 51-71. Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational Leadership: Industrial, Military, and Educational Impact. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990). Transformational leadership development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1995). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. (5x short) Palo Alto., CA: Mind Garden. Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., and Atwater, L. (1996). 'The transformational and transactional leadership of men and women'. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 1, 5-34. Church, A.H. (1998). 'Moderators of managerial behavior ratings: An analysis from multiple perspectives'. (personal communication). Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B. T. (1990) Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 233-256. Harris, M. M., and Schaubroeck, J. (1988). 'A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervisor ratings'. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43-62. Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2004). Assessing leadership: A view from the dark side. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 1 & 2, 40-51. Komives, S. R. (1991). The relation of same- and cross-gender work pairs to staff performance and supervisor leadership in residence hall units. Sex Roles, 24, 355-363.
London, M. and Wohlers, A.J. (1991). 'Agreement between subordinate and self ratings in upward feedback'. Personnel Psychology, 44, 375-390. Rosener, J. (1990). 'Ways women lead'. Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec., 119-125. Sparrow, J. and Rigg, C. (1993). 'Job analysis: Selecting for the masculine approachto management'. Selection and Development Review, 9, 2, 508. Weisul, K. (2004). The bottom line on women at the top, Business Week, January 26 th. Wohlers, A.J. and London, M. (1989). 'Ratings of managerial characteristics: evaluation difficulty, co-worker agreement, and self-awareness'. Personnel Psychology, 42, 235-261. Table 1 Summary of significant differences between in ratings of males vs. females (in all cases, ratings of females are higher) (N= 2,013) TLQ SCALE All Direct Reports Male middle managers Female middle managers Male senior managers Female senior managers Leading Individuals Showing Genuine Concern.000.000.001 Enabling.000 Being Accessible.022 Encouraging Change.003.000.002 Personal Qualities Being Honest & Consistent.002 Acting with Integrity.002.001.002 Being Decisive.000.000 Inspiring Others.001.041.002.009 Resolving Complex Problems.018.017.01 Leading the Organisation Networking & Achieving.003.001.009 Focusing Effort.000.000.000 Building Shared Vision.023.008.006 Supporting Development.032.000 Facilitating Change.000.009.000 Male or female middle managers (Level 4) rating a senior manager Male or female senior manager, rating a top manager Figure 1
Scales measured by The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (360-feedback version) Leading & Developing Others (1) Showing Genuine Concern Genuine interest in staff as individuals; values their contributions; develops their strengths; coaches, mentors; has positive expectations of what their staff can achieve. (13 items; α =.95) Enabling Trusts staff to take decisions/initiatives on important matters; delegates effectively; develops staffs potential. (6 items; α =.86) Being Accessible Approachable and not status-conscious; prefers face-to-face communication; accessible and keeps in-touch. (5 items; α =.84) Encouraging Change Encourages questioning traditional approaches to the job; encourages new approaches/solutions to problems; encourages strategic thinking. (8 items; α =.88 ) Personal Qualities (2) Being Honest Honest and consistent in behaviour; more concerned with the good of the organisation than personal ambition. (4 items; α =.93) Acting with Integrity Open to criticism and disagreement; consults and involves others in decision-making; regards values as integral to the organisation. (9 items; α =.89 ) Being Decisive, risk-taking Decisive when required; prepared to take difficult decisions, and risks when appropriate. (5 items; α =.83 ) Inspiring Others Charismatic; exceptional communicator; inspires others to join them.
(5 items; α =.84 ) Resolving Complex Problems Capacity to deal with a wide range of complex issues; creative in problem-solving. (5 items; α =.85) Leading the Organisation (3) Networking & Achieving Inspiring communication of the vision of the organisation/service to a wide network of internal and external stakeholders; gains the confidence and support of various groups through sensitivity to needs, and by achieving organisational goals. (12 items; α =.92) Focusing Team Effort Clarifies objectives and boundaries; team-orientated to problem-solving and decisionmaking, and to identifying values. (9 items; α =.90 ) Building Shared Vision Has a clear vision and strategic direction, in which s/he engages various internal and external stakeholders in developing; draws others together in achieving the vision. (7 items; α =.90 ) Supporting a Developmental Culture Supportive when mistakes are made; encourages critical feedback of him/herself and the service provided. (9 items; α =.90 ) Facilitating Change Sensitively Sensitivity to the impact of change on different parts of the organisation; maintains a balance between change and stability. (6 items; α =.85)