Gender Bias in Leadership 2

Leadership theories and gender bias in leadership

How theories of leadership can improve our understanding of gender bias in

leadership.

Introduction

Gender bias in leadership, Does it really exist?

There are many women who occupy various leadership positions around the world,

although, it is evident that there is inequality in sexes occupying those roles (Metcalfe

and Altman, 2001), currently, only 2 percent of board members for Fortune 500

companies are held by women (mbcglobal, 2008), this phenomenon as led to various

debates in the past on the causes, which as led to assumptions that men and women

behave differently, treated differently and are valued differently, implying that those

within each category are identical and One category valued as superior to the other,

which affects the assignment of organizational responsibilities and most decisions

concerning, career progress, resources, salaries, power, authority, appropriate work

behaviour (Northouse, 2007, p15-27). This essay draws on theories of leadership that

may help explain the reasons for this phenomenon.

Trait theory

Through in-dept reading, I determined Trait as a distinguishing feature or quality,

which can be observed and measured. It is important to know the benchmarks in

measuring leadership traits so as to understand the perceptions of followers. The

“Great man” theory by Thomas Carlyle (1841) was the first systematic attempts to

benchmark Trait theory, where by Carlyle focused on the innate qualities possessed

by great social political, and military leaders (e.g., Mohandas Gandhi, Abraham

Lincoln, and Napoleon) (Northouse, 2007, p15), due to either their personal charisma,

intelligence and wisdom or Machiavellianism, used power in a way that had a

decisive historical impact (Carlyle. 1841).

For Prof Paresh WankhadeInternational Masters in Business Administration (2008)

1


Carlyle (1841) establishes a generalist masculine benchmark for both genders,

reflecting his belief that “Great men” or heroes; highly influential individuals shape

history through both their personal attributes and divine inspiration (Hirsch, E.D.

2002). The word “Divine” reflects the perception that it was ordained by a higher

authority, which reflects the argument that religions are bias; as they suggest that man

was created in Gods image, woman played a supporting role, and Eve led Adam

astray, as a research concluded that gender bias in religion has been neither accidental

nor superficial (Feminist Philosophy of Religion. 2005).

The “Great man” theory suggests that leaders where born with their traits; inherited

traits, and people who are effective leaders have the right (or sufficient) combination

of these traits (Stogdill, 1974). As stated below;

Figure 1

Traits Skills

Adaptable to situations

Alert to social environment

Ambitious and achievement-orientated

Assertive

Cooperative

Decisive

Dependable

Dominant (desire to influence others)

Energetic (high activity level)

Persistent

Self-confident

Tolerant of stress

Willing to assume responsibility

Clever (intelligent)

Conceptually skilled

Creative

Diplomatic and tactful

Fluent in speaking

Knowledgeable about group task

Organised (administrative ability)

Persuasive

Socially skilled

Source: adapted from Stogdill (1974)


2


McCall and Lombardo (1983) identified four primary traits of successful leadership;

Emotional stability and composure: Calm, confident and predictable, mainly when

under stress. Contrarily, women are stereotypically perceived as less intelligent,

emotional and therefore irrational and physically they do not have the same presence

or strength and power of men roles (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001). Trait theory also

linked physical characteristics such as weight, height, physique and energy to

effective leadership.

The term “Great Man” was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of

primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership (Van Wagner,

2009), The emphasis on physical stature and body strength mimics the requirements

for law enforcement and military occupations, which indicates why the majority of

leaders are men (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001).

The “Great man” theory insinuates leaders where born with this traits; “leadership

characteristics" due to their psychological makeup (Cromwell and Kolb. 2004), but

this was challenged by Stogdill (1948), he acknowledged that situation is what

determines leadership, that a leader in one situation might not be a leader in another

(Northouse, 2007, p15). If this is true then what situation is best suited for women to

be a leader? This question is hard to answer, but recently, due to increasing number of

women in leadership positions, journalists have been able to establish that there are

gender differences in leadership styles and women are more effective in contemporary

societies (Northouse, 2007, p266). A contemporary society is an adage of the 20th

century, “contemporary” meaning new, ideologies and situations. To understand these

changes we need to look deep into history to see what changes might have occurred.

Firstly, Prejudice; meaning a largely fixed attitude, belief, or emotion held by an

individual about another individual or group (Northouse, 2007, p304), this implies

that how you are treated in a society is determined before your birth. Historically, the

strong dominates the week, less developed civilizations are enslaved by the advanced

civilizations, and society’s class individuals based on their wealth, race, influence, sex

and power, which is explains the proverb “not all fingers are equal”. If this is true then

women are the first victims of this phenomenon, as a result, various initiatives have

been put in-place (laws and organization), for example; laws- Equality Act 2006 (UK)


3


Equality Bill (UK), CEDAW (United Nations, 1979), Gender Equity Education Act

(Taiwan), Uniform civil code (India), and Organizations- Government Equalities

Office (UK), Afghan Ministry of Women Affairs (Afghanistan), Christians for

Biblical Equality, European Institute for Gender Equality.

Secondly, Goldstein S. (2001) established sex roles in conflict and peace, “sex” refers

to what is biological, and “gender” to what is cultural. He established that

biologically, men’s genes program them for violence; testosterone makes men more

aggressive than women; men are bigger and stronger than women; men’s brains are

adapted for long–distance mobility and for aggression; and women are biologically

adapted for care giving roles. As a result, followers perceive men as necessary leaders

in times of war (Boyce and Herd, 2003). Marxist theories claimed that when humans

lived in matriarchal societies (women held political power) there was relative peace

existing, and that the universal probability for war in human society suggests that the

gendering of war may matter even in relatively peaceful times and places, because

even a society that is not at war may someday go to war (Goldstein S. 2001), but

currently there are 12 women world leaders (Current Female World Leaders, 2009),

which is a sign of societal change.

Finally, the “Patriarchal order”, during the 18th century when “Great man” theory was

established women had no to little rights or recognition globally. Until the mid-

nineteenth century, people assumed that a “Patriarchal order” was a natural order that

existed, where by men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as

a whole, acting as representatives of the family (Pdhre. 2005). Women are generally

given a lower status in the public sphere and are seen to occupy the domestic sphere

by virtue of their reproductive capacities (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001). These are

ideologies and concepts that are changing globally, giving rise to contemporary

societies.


4


Style/ behavioural theory

Style approach to leadership emphasizes the behaviour of the leader, which is a

perceiver’s perspective (Northouse, 2007, p69-71). Kolb (1997) Research

demonstrated that there more similarities than differences in the leadership behaviours

of women and men, and that they are equally effective, but the same leadership

behaviours are often evaluated more positively when attributed to a male than to a

female, consequently, women are less likely to be seen as emerging leaders (Kolb, J.

A.1997, p.504). some researchers argued that it was due to an inadequate number of

women with the necessary education and managerial experiences present to promote

upper level management (Backert R. S. G. 2004), Others believed that perceivers

idea of leadership is masculine, where by both genders favour a more masculine

approach to leadership, like a study showed that women that are high on the

organizational charts are often rated much higher on the masculinity scale than are

women in the lower ranks of the organization. (Kolb, J. A. p. 374). Feminine

approaches to leadership tend to be more person, rather than task-oriented (Backert R.

S. G. 2004) Task-oriented; meaning a more directive approach where the leader spells

out the responsibilities of an individual or group which is viewed as a masculine trait

(Howes and Stevenson, 1993), In contrast, women approach to leadership is

communal, and even when this is effective, they play a supporting role by not

acknowledging their contribution (Backert R. S. G. 2004), consequently, increasing

the lack of recognition of leadership emergence among women.

Eagly & Karau (2002) established that prejudice can arise from the relations that

people perceive between the characteristics of members of a social group and the

requirements of the social roles that group members occupy or aspire to occupy. The

social groups are classed as communal (women) and agentic (men), Women

displaying behaviours that violate their prescribed gender role are disliked by others

and viewed as less influential (Backert R. S. G. 2004).

Perceptions of leaders describe both the descriptive and injunctive norms associated

with men and women (Eagly & Karau, 2002) in that the mainstream of these beliefs

about the sexes, relates to the supposed communal attributes of women, and the

agentic ones for men, and By only performing communal behaviours, women are less


5


likely to be perceived as a leader. Yet, displaying agentic behaviours, the outcome is

negative for women and positive for men, in which woman’s influence and likeability

is eroded (Backert R. S. G. 2004). Communal attributes relate to being interpersonally

sensitive, nurturing, kind, helpful and concerned about the welfare of others. Agentic

attributes have to do with being aggressive, forceful, self-confident, and in control

(Eagly & Karau, 2002).

Contingency theory

Contingency theory is similar to situational theory because there is an assumption of

no one right way of leadership, given that the theory takes into consideration the

leader's ability to lead based upon various situational factors, including the leader's

preferred style, the capabilities and behaviours of followers and also various other

situational factors. The main difference between the two theories is that situational

theory tends to focus more on the behaviours that the leader should adopt, given

situational factors, whereas contingency theory takes a broader view that includes

contingent factors about leader capability and other variables within the situation

(Northouse, 2007, p113-118).

Fiedler (1964) identified the Least Preferred Co-Worker (LPC) scoring for leaders by

asking them what they think of a person that they have worked with, then to score the

person on a range of scales between positive factors (cooperative, friendly, cheerful,

etc.) and negative factors (unfriendly, gloomy, uncooperative, etc.). A high LPC

leader normally scores the other person as positive and a low LPC leader scores them

as negative (Northouse, 2007, p113-118).

Fiedler's (1967) contingency model specifies that performance is dependent on the

leader's motivational method and the extent to which the leader controls the situation.

The principal effect on group performance is the leader's LPC Score, but this can be

interceded by contingent variables of group atmosphere (i.e. leader and members),

task structure and position power (Hellriegal et al., 1995, cited in Metcalfe and


6


Altman).Three factors are then identified about the leader, member and the task, are

as follows:

Leader-Member Relations: Degree to which the leader has the support and

loyalties of followers and relations with them are friendly and cooperative.

Task structure: Degree, to which tasks are standardised, documented and

controlled.

Leader's Position-power: Degree to which the leader has authority to assess

follower performance and give reward or punishment.

(Northouse, 2007, p114-116),

This LPC theory suggests that the best approach depends on a combination of the

three. Normally, a high LPC approach is best when leader-member relations are poor,

and low LPC style is best when the task is unstructured and the leader is weak. The

major criticism of this theory is that it does not consider the variety of leadership traits

found to be related to leadership effectiveness, like self-monitoring; the leader‘s and

the follower‘s values, attitudes, and preferences; the cohesiveness, norms, or size of

the group; or task, organizational design and culture, or environmental factors that can

affect the leadership process. “(Hughes, ET. Al. p. 409), and most importantly is

Nothing in the study pointed to gender as being an ingredient for effective leadership,

when clearly it is, for example, the concept of 'sexual static' which cover a range of

misunderstandings in the workplace which cause discomfort for men and frustration

for women, pertaining to role confusion; garbled communication and culture clashes

to articulate the differences in men and women's work experiences. Role confusion

refers to the conflict between what is the expected role of an individual culturally and

their role in a workplace. Communication refers to the differences in male and female

communication patterns. Women communicate in a way that exchanges feelings and

creates personal relationships. Men communicate to establish their status and show

independence. Culture clash conveys the difference between male and female cultural

values (Metcalfe and Altman, 2001).

The idea of position of power being a factor, which was not related to gender might

reflect the masculinity, in the sense that men are characterized by trait as physically

having strength and aggressiveness (Van Wagner, 2009), also historically, men where


7


dominant in the society, as `...in power, with power, and of power' (Kimmel, 1994 in

Telford, 1996, citied in Metcalfe and Altman, 2001).

Conclusion

This has been a rewarding, revealing and fascinating research for me. I understand

much more clearly now how perceivers view is a major factor affecting leadership,

perceivers view is created by the society, which is affected by various cultural factors

including history, which generates an accepted unconscious idea of effective

leadership. The perceivers are mainly the followers, who conceive what type of

leaders they desire and the successes of these leaders are based on follower’s

acceptance of the leaders. Based on this phenomenon, unfortunately it has not being

to a woman’s advantage, because genetically and historically they have been a victim

of exclusion and discrimination, to the point that a view of what characteristics

effective leaders have, is the opposite of a woman’s characteristics.

Current Leadership theories are outdated and need to be reviewed and followed

through with necessary laws, because innate cultures are going to reject such changes,

considering that this problem differs in country to country and culture to culture.

Some cultures still regard women as inferior and unwanted before birth. Which I

strongly believe the world would be better off without, for the benefit of our sisters

and mothers and generations to come.


8


References

Backert R. S. G. (2004) A Nonlinear Approach to Gender Bias in Leadership

Emergence Perceptions, Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University In partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the degree of Masters of Science In Industrial-Organizational

Psychology, Blacksburg, VA 24060, May 27, 2004.

Boyce and Herd (2003); Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Vol. 49, 2003

“The Relationship between Gender Role Stereotypes and Requisite Military

Leadership Characteristics” [online]

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002020434 Accessed

(18\02\09)

Current Female World Leader Count (2009), [online]

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_female-leaders.php Accessed

(18\02\09)

Carlyle (1841). On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic History. Boston,

MA: Houghton Mifflin. [online] http://www.questia.com/read/1444983#|.

Accessed (18\02\09)

Cromwell and Kolb (2004), “An examination of work-environment support

factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the work place”,

Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 449-71.

Eagly, A., Johannesen-Schmidt, M., & van Engen, M. (2003).

Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-

analysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin, 29(4), 569-591.

Eagly, A., & Johnson, B. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-

analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-256.


9


Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice

Toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598

Feminist Philosophy of Religion (Mar 14, 2005) [online]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-religion/ Accessed (18\02\09)

Fiedler, F.E. (1964). A contingency model of leadership effectiveness. In L.

Berkowitz (end), Advances in experimental social psychology, NY:

Fiedler, F. E (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York:

McGraw-Hill

Goldstein S. (2001) War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System

and Vice Versa (Cambridge University Press, September 2001) [online]

http://www.warandgender.com/wgch1.htm Accessed (18\02\09)

Hirsch, E.D. (2002) The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition),

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 2002.

Hogue M. and Lord R. G (2007) A multilevel, complexity theory approach to

understanding gender bias in leadership, The Leadership Quarterly 18 (2007)

370-390

Hughes, Gannett, & Murphy. 1993: Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of

Experience. Richard D. Irwin, INC, p. 409

Heilman, M., Block, C., Martell, R., & Simon, M. (1989). Has anything

changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 74, 935-942.

Howes and Stevenson, 1993. Women and the Use of Military Force. Lynne

Rienner Publishers, Inc.


10


Kolb, J. A. Are We Still Stereotyping Leadership? SMALL GROUP

RESEARCH, Vol.28 No. 3, August 1997

McCall, M.W. Jr. and Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off the track: Why and how

successful executives get derailed. Greensboro, NC: Centre for Creative

Leadership

Metcalfe, B. & Altman, Y. (2001) Leadership. In E. M. Wilson, (ed.)

Organizational Behaviour Reassessed: The Impact of Gender. London: Sage,

pp.104-128.

Morrison, A. M., White, R. P., & Van Velsor, E. (1992). Breaking the Glass

Ceiling (Updated ed.). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley

mbcglobal (September 5, 2008) Survey shows gender bias in

leadership[online]http://www.mbcglobal.org/2008/09/survey-shows-gender-

bias-in-leadership.html Accessed (18\02\09)

Northouse (2007), Leadership: Theory and Practice, 4thed, Peter. G.

Northouse, sage publications, 2007. US.

Pdhre (2005) Invitation for comments to develop the content and agenda of a

Conference at the WSF: "Transforming the Patriarchal Order to human rights

System" [online] http://www.pdhre.org/patriarchy.html. Accessed (18\02\09)

Stogdill, R. M. (1948). Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of

the literature, journal of physiology, 25, 35-71

Stogdill, R. M. (1974) hand book of leadership: a survey of theory and

research, New York: free press

Van Wagner (2009), About.com “Leadership Theories”

[online]http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/p/leadtheories.htm

Accessed (18\02\09)


11



12

Documents

Gender Bias in Leadership 2