Sex Roles, Vol. 23, Nos. 7/8, 1990

Gender Stereotypes and Dimensions of Effective

Leader Behavior

Arnie Cann 1 and Wi l l i a m D. Siegfried 1 University o f North Carolina at Charlotte

Research has consistently found that effective leadership is perceived as characterized by traits similar to those associated with masculine gender roles. These perceptions would appear to be at odds with extensive research in- dicating that effective leadership requires "consideration" and "structuring" behaviors-behaviors that seem to represent both masculine and feminine styles. In two separate studies, the correspondence between gender stereo- types and dimensions o f effective leadership were assessed. Results indicate that consideration behaviors are perceived to be feminine, while structuring behaviors are perceived to be masculine. Similarly, qualities that character- ize the masculine gender role are perceived to be consistent with structuring, while qualities associated with the feminine gender roles are perceived to be consistent with consideration. It is suggested that an increased awareness o f the "androgynous" nature o f effective leadership behaviors might weaken the biases in favor o f male leaders.

Many studies have found that effective leadership is perceived to require traits stereotyped as masculine (e.g., Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Schein, 1973, 1975; Powell & Butterfield, 1979, 1984, 1989). In fact, this view is so ingrained that in a recent replication of Schein's original studies o f requisite management characteristics (Brenner et al., 1989), the only noteworthy change over a 15-year interval was a change in women managers' views of "women in general" who were seen as sharing many characteristics o f managers. The qualities that defined the successful manager remained the same. Despite evi- dence that females are just as successful as males in most leadership situa-

1Reprint requests may be addressed at Department of Psychology, University of North Caroli- na at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223.

413

03604)025/90/1000-0413506.00/0 © 1990 Plenum Publishing Corporation

414 Cann and Siegfried

tions (e.g., Brown, 1979; Dobbins & Platz, 1986; Powell, 1988; Rice, Instone, & Adams, 1984; Trempe, Rigny, & Haccoun, 1985), the overlap persists be- tween the stereotypes of a "good manager" and a "typical male." The over- lap is especially intriguing given the consistent finding that effective leader behavior ususally requires behaviors from two independent dimensions (see Fleishman, 1973, or Blake & Mouton, 1978) that appear to mirror gender differences in behavioral style. For example, most models of leadership as- sume a need for consideration, or employee-oriented behaviors, as well as a need for structuring, or directive production-oriented behaviors (see Lan- dy, 1989, for a summary). Similar research on gender stereotypes consistently identifies two distinct clusters of behaviors termed "agentic" and "communal" (Spence & Helmreich, 1978; Williams & Best, 1982). The agentic qualities are associated with a masculine style and the communal qualities are judged as feminine. To the extent that the agentic qualities imply directive or struc- turing behaviors and the communal qualities imply consideration behaviors, one would assume that views of effective leaders should incorporate both gender clusters.

Recently it has been suggested that the bias in favor of masculine qual- ities for leadership may be an artifact of the perspective from which the leader is judged. Most studies have examined the construct of leadership by as- sessing the traits and behaviors a superior would desire in a subordinate lead- er. By adopting that perspective, a top-down view, attention may be focused on the need for highly directive behaviors, while the importance of the other employee-oriented aspects of effective leadership is deemphasized. To test this proposal, Cann and Siegfried (1987) manipulated the perspective of the evalu- ator, requesting that the ideal manager be judged either from the position of a subordinate or a superior. They found that "feminine" qualities were more highly valued by those adopting a subordinate perspective, while those viewing the manager from the position of a superior valued "masculine" traits more highly.

One likely explanation for the impact of perspective is that the subor- dinates, as primary beneficiaries of employee-centered behaviors, are more concerned with consideration from their leaders. Superiors, on the other hand, value the more directive or structuring behaviors designed to ensure task com- pletion. Despite the evidence that "consideration" is a necessary element in effective leadership, a superior may not be adequately attuned to the poten- tially positive impact of employee-oriented behaviors from a subordinate lead- er. The result is a preference for masculine or agentic managers rather than more androgynous leaders. This explanation for the results reported by Cann and Siegfried (1987) assumes that the behaviors relevant to consideration are perceived as more feminine and that structuring behaviors are more mas- culine. Although the correspondence between the dimensions of leader be-

Gender and Leader Behavior 415

havior and gender stereotypes seems intuitively reasonable, no direct assessment of the masculinity and /o r femininity of the leader behaviors has been reported.

The present studies provide an empirical comparison of the masculini- ty-femininity of the leadership styles of consideration and structuring. Two studies assessed this relationship by having participants rate the masculini- ty-femininity of the behaviors associated with the two leadership styles, and secondly, rate the leadership styles implied by sex-typed traits. It is expected that the leadership styles will be perceived as varying along a masculine-femi- nine dimension, and the agentic-communal differences will parallel the dis- tinctions described by the structuring-consideration dimension.

M E T H O D

Overview

In two separate studies participants provided data to assess the rela- tionship between leadership styles and sex-typed behavioral styles. In the first study, the behaviors associated with the leadership styles o f consideration and initiating structure were rated on a masculine-feminine dimension. The second study required rating sex-typed traits on a dimension reflecting the differences in leadership styles (consideration vs. structuring). Although par- ticipants were drawn from undergraduate psychology courses rather than from practicing managers, it should be noted that Powell and Butterfield (1989) describe research indicating no reliable differences between these groups on a similar task.

Table I. Ratings of Sex-Typed Qualities on Leadership Dimensions ~ Masculine Feminine Neutral

Ambitious 3.95 Affectionate 1 .32 Adaptable Independent 4.13 Gentle 1 .45 Conscientious Confident 3 .29 Appreciative 1 .81 Conventional Aggressive 4 .42 Sensitive 1.43 Helpful Assertive 3 .74 Emotional 1.90 Reliable Dominant 4 .58 Sentimental 1.68 Sincere Forceful 4 .45 Dependent 2.26 Solemn Autocratic 3 .90 Excitable 3.00 Tactful Stern 4.32 Mild 2.03 Truthful Tough 4 .29 Submissive 2 . 2 6 Predictable Analytical 3.55 Compassionate 1 .55 Systematic Competitive 3 . 9 4 Understanding 1.77 Efficient

Mean 4.05 Mean 1.87 Mean

2.52 2.48 3.29 2.13 2.84 2.19 3.00 2.81 2.32 3.23 4.10 3.52

2.87

"Scale: consideration (1) to structuring (5).

416 Cann and Siegfried

Sex-typed traits. Twelve traits were selected to represent each of three dimensions of sex-typed behaviors: masculine, feminine, and neutral (see Table I). These traits were selected from previous research by Bem (1974) and Wil- liams and Bennett (1975). Traits judged to be obviously inappropriate to leadership activities were eliminated. The 36 traits selected had been used in other research on effective leadership styles (Cann & Siegfried, 1987).

Leadership behaviors. The leadership styles of consideration and in- itiating structure, derived as part of the Ohio State Leadership studies (Fleish- man, 1973), were represented by the ten behavioral descriptors (see Table II) that are included on the instrument (Leadership Behavior Description Ques- tionnaire; LBDQ) originally designed to assess these styles. These items have been widely used to assess leader behavior differences.

Study 1: Leadership Styles of Sex-Typed Traits

Participants (11 males and 20 females) were given descriptions of the leadership styles of consideration and initiating structure. The descriptions included a listing of the 10 LBDQ behaviors associated with each style. The participants were instructed to read and reread the descriptions until they felt they had a good understanding of the two dimensions. It was empha- sized in the instructions that the two dimensions were both potentially im- portant in being an effective manager. Participants then rated each of the 36 sex-typed traits on a 5-point scale ranging from more like consideration (1) to more like structuring (5).

Study 2: Sex Typing of Leadership Behaviors

Participants (17 males and 23 females) were given the three sets of traits (masculine, feminine, and neutral) and were told that the traits were those often used to describe someone who acts in a masculine, feminine, or neither masculine nor feminine manner. They were told to read the lists over until they were sure they understood the qualities that characterized each category. The instructions indicated that all three types of behaviors were potentially important and effective. The participants then rated each of the 20 LBDQ leader behaviors on a 5-point scale ranging from masculine (1) to feminine (5).

RESULTS A N D DISCUSSION

The results are presented in Tables I and II. Clearly the assumption of a gender-based distinction between consideration and structuring behaviors

Gender and Leader Behavior

Table II. Ratings of Leadership Behaviors on Sex Role Dimensions*

Consideration The leader Is friendly and approachable 3.73 Does little things to make it pleasant to be in the group 3.68 Puts suggestions made by group into operation 2.95 Treats all group members as equals 3.33 Gives advance notice of changes 3.05 "Keeps to himself "~ 3.92 Looks out for the personal welfare of group members 4.25 Is willing to make changes 3.53 Refuses to explain actions* 4.52 Acts without consulting the group a 4.57

Mean 3.75 Initiating structure The leader Lets the group know what is expected of them 2.23 Encourages the use of uniform procedures 2.28 Tries out personal ideas in the group 3.28 Makes attitudes clear to the group 2.10 Decides what shall be done and how it shall be done 1.40 Assigns group members to particiular tasks 2.50 Makes sure group members understand leader's part

in group 2.43 Schedules work to be done 2.23 Maintains definite standards of performance 1.90 Asks that group members follow standard rules 2.55

Mean 2.29

*Scale: masculine (1) to feminine (5). bThese items were reverse scored.

417

is suppor ted . In Table I, the rat ings of the mascul ine and femin ine traits do no t overlap. Mascul ine traits are rated as much more s t ructuring, while femi- n ine trai ts are judged to be more like cons idera t ion . The neut ra l traits fit nicely in to the middle of the scale, indica t ing that they are no t viewed as clearly represent ing one gender style over the other. A 2 (sex of par t ic ipant) x 3 (mascul ine, feminine , neutra l ) repeated measures analysis o f var iance was conducted using part icipants ' overall ratings of the 12 masculine, 12 femi- nine, and 12 neut ra l quali t ies as the dependen t measure. The ou tcome con- f i rmed that the three categories of quali t ies were rated as rel iably different [F(2, 58) = 180.52, p < .05]. Neither the sex of par t ic ipant m a i n effect no r the in terac t ion were signif icant .

In Table II, the ratings of leader behaviors provide an equal ly clear pat- tern. Cons ide ra t ion behaviors are more f iminine , a nd s t ruc tur ing behaviors are more mascul ine. Again , there is m in ima l over lap between the two sets of ratings. A 2 (sex of participant) x 2 (consideration vs. structuring) repeated measures analysis o f var iance conf i rmed the obvious difference [F(1, 38) = 229.53, p < .05] between the two leadership styles. The analysis also rev- ealed a m a i n effect for sex o f par t ic ipant [F(1, 38) = 8.11, p < .05], bu t

418 Cann and Siegfried

no interact ion. The ma in effect indicated that females (M = 3.08), in gener- al, rated the behaviors as more feminine than did males (M = 2.91), al though the difference is quite small.

The results suggest that despite stereotypic expectations that por t ray effective leadership as domina ted by masculine qualities, the behaviors recog- nized as relevant to successful leadership include behaviors that are viewed as feminine. Therefore , effective leaders, those who can respond successful- ly to the variety of demands and s i tuat ions encountered by leaders, must be behaviora l ly androgynous . They mus t have the flexibility to engage in be- haviors associated with bo th mascul ine and feminine styles. The stereotype of a mascul ine leader represents a very nar row view that ignores an import - an t d imens ion of effective leadership. Fu ture research on leadership stereo- types needs to be sensitive to the focus given to the raters to avoid leading them to consider only a l imited range of leader behaviors . Similarly, there

should be an acknowledgment that the dimensions of effective leader behavior closely correspond to the behavioral styles associated with masculine and femi- n ine gender roles

R E F E R E N C E S

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155-162.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1978). The new managerial grid. Houston: Gulf. Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. (1989). The relationship between sex role stereo-

types and requisite management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal 32, 662-669.

Brown, S. M. (1979). Male versus female leaders: A comparison of empirical studies. Sex Roles, 5, 595-611.

Cann, A., & Siegfried, W. D. (1987). Sex stereotypes and the leadership role. Sex Roles, 17, 401-408.

Dobbins, G. H., & Platz, S. J. (1986). Sex differences in leadership: How real are they? Acade- my of Management Journal, 11, 118-127.

Fleishman, E. A. (1973). Twenty years of consideration and structure. In E. A. Fleishman & J. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current developments in the study of leadership. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Landy, F. J. (1989). Psychology of work behavior. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole. Powell, G. N. (1988). Women and men in management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1979). The "good manager": Masculine or androgynous?

Academy of Management Journal, 22, 395-403. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1984). If "good managers" are masculine, what are "bad

managers"? Sex Roles, 10, 477-484. Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1989). The "good manager": Did androgyny fare better

in the 1980's? Group and Organization Studies, 14, 216-233. Rice, R. W., Instone, D., & Adams, J. (1984). Leader sex, leader success, and leadership process:

Two field studies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 12-31. Schein, V. E. (1973). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management

characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 95-100. Schein, V. E. (1975). The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management

characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340-344.

Gender and Leader Behavior 419

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimen- sions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Trempe, J., Rigny, A., & Haccoun, R. (1985). Subordinate satisfaction with male and female managers: Role of perceived supervisory influence. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 70, 44-47.

Williams, J. E., & Bennett, S. M. (1975). The definition of sex stereotypes via the adjective checklist. Sex Roles, 1 327-337.

Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1982). Measuring sex stereotypes: A thirty nation study. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.