Walumbwa - Transational vs. Transformational Leadership (Gender Differences)

7/22/2019 Walumbwa - Transational vs. Transformational Leadership (Gender Differences)

1/21

GENDER STEREOTYPE AND INSTRUCTORS LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR:

TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

FRED OCHIENG WALUMBWAUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Institute of Labor and Industrial RelationsE.mail: [email protected]

LUCY A. OJODE

Indiana University KokomoDivision of Business & Economics

Abstract

We adopt the Full Range Leadership (FRL) model to explore male and female

students' perception of instructor leadership behaviors. The model uses theMultifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) instrument to measure the transactional

and transformational leadership styles as perceived by followers. A sample of 429students from a large Midwest university (57% female and 43% male) and 21 faculty

members participated in the study. The data were collected in a period of twosemesters based on faculty willingness to participate in the study. The results indicate

certain gender differences in instructor leadership rating by students. Although thestudys context is instructional setting, the results provide indications that may be

contrary to the adoption of universal organizational practices to optimize on theefficiency of human capital.


2/21

2

GENDER STEREOTYPE AND INSTRUCTORS LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR:

TRANSFORMATIONAL AND TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP

Research (e.g., Bass, Avolio, & Atwater, 1996; Jacobs & McClelland, 1994) identify that

a leader's gender moderates subordinates perception of leadership style and effectiveness.However, we have limited understanding of the impact of subordinates' gender on their

perception of leadership behavior. The leadership-gender research remains focused on the leaderdespite the evidence that subordinates' responses to the leadership styles of managers may

depend on the gender of both the manager and the subordinate (Futrell, 1984). Similarly, theextensive research on subordinate attributes moderating effects is silent on demographics such as

gender (e.g., House & Mitchell, 1974; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Fetter, 1993). This gap inleadership research is particularly pronounced at the instructional levels where investigation has

been confined to stereotypical male executive retrospective reports of leadership moldingexperiences in high schools and colleges (Bass, 1998). In this paper we address this gap by

exploring the relationship between student stereotypes and perceived instructor leadership

behavior.

We adopt Bernstein, Roy, Srull, & Wickens (1988) definition of stereotype as an

impression or schema of an entire group of people. Most stereotypes focus on observableattributes such as age, education, race, and gender. For example, the notion that older

individuals are more positive self-descriptors than younger people (Chiroboga & Thurner, 1975),or the belief that people with limited formal education and those that are highly educated find

difficulty working together (Barnard, 1938). In this study we seek to evaluate genderstereotypical effects on student rating of instructors with a focus on instructors leadership style.

Assuming that leadership models may be applied in instructor-student relationships, we adopt theFull Range Leadership (FRL) model to examine the impact of male and female students

perception of instructor leadership style.

Although Bass et al (1996) examined FRL model and gender consideration, they focusedon non-academic setting and investigated the effect of the leaders' gender. In a similar study,

Comer, Jolson, Dubinsky, and Yammarino (1995) compared male and female subordinates'responses to a manager's leadership style. For a triad of a female sales manager and two

subordinate salespersons (one male), Comer et al (1995) designed a questionnaire instrument forthe subordinates to assess the managers' leadership style, the salespersons' satisfaction with

supervision and the salespersons' selling performance. They found salesmen to be mostresponsive to leaders displaying individualized consideration and transactional leadership styles

(contingent rewards or management-by-exception). The saleswomen on the other hand preferredcharismatic leaders and those that adopted intellectually stimulating methods.

Our study mirrors Bass et al (1996) on the aspect of gender and Comer et al (1995) with

regard to subordinates, but our focus on instructional setting distinguishes our approach fromthese studies. As the provision of worker training services spreads outside the traditional

training institutions (Business Week, October 18, 1999:76), it becomes necessary to have a betterunderstanding of the instructional clientele and their expectations in order for these institutions to

maintain the provision of value added. It is therefore important that we understand students


3/21

3

needs in relation to one of the distinguishing features of the traditional training institutionsthe

instructor. Our study seeks to address one of these needs by employing the FRL model toexplore gender differences in students perception of instructor leadership behavior. A

secondary motivation for this study is to evaluate the robustness of the FRL model. A largenumber of studies have adopted the FRL framework to model gender differences in a variety of

settings (Bass, 1998) with consistent empirical evidence for the theory (Bass & Avolio, 1997).However, we are unaware of any study that investigates gender differences in students

perception of instructor leadership behavior.

The Full Range Leadership Theoretical Framework

The Full Range Leadership model proposes that certain characteristic outcome variables

result from transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. We omitted the thirdcomponent of the FRL modelthe laissez-faire leadership because its single leadership

dimension makes it inappropriate for the instructional setting. Outcomes from transformationaland transactional leadership behaviors include the degree to which the leader might elicit extra

effort from his/her followers, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with the leader.

Transformational leadership style comprises charisma, inspirational motivation, intellectualstimulation, and individualized consideration. Leaders who demonstrate transformationalleadership behaviors provoke emotional response in followers (Druscat, 1994). They stimulate

followers to change their beliefs, values, capabilities, and motives in order to raise performancebeyond self-interest for the good of the organization (Bass, 1985, 1990; Burns, 1978; Tichy &

Devenna; Burke, 1986). Transactional leadership consists of contingent reward, activemanagement-by-exception (MBE-A), and passive management-by-exception (MBE-P). This

leadership style focuses on follower motivation through (extrinsic) rewards or discipline.Consequently, leaders who adopt this style of leadership clarify kinds of rewards and punishmentthat followers expect for various behaviors (Bass, 1998). Leaders may actively monitor

deviations from standards to identify mistakes and errorsMBE-A, or they may wait (passively)

for subordinates to err before initiating corrective actionMBE-P (Bass, 1985).

Several studies have addressed the relationship of subordinate satisfaction and leader

effectiveness to transformational and transactional leadership styles. These studies demonstratethat transformational leadership is associated more with followers satisfaction and willingness

to exert extra effort to achieve organizational goals (e.g., Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1993,1995; Bycio, Hackett, & Allen, 1995; Hater & Bass, 1988; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Shamir,

Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998; Yammarino & Bass, 1990). There is no evidence from thesestudies however that indicates that transformational and transactional leadership styles are

mutually exclusive, neither is any normative claim made for the superiority of a given behavior.Rather, the FRL research reveals that transactional leadership style is equally important and

sometimes constitutes a necessary counterpart to transformational leadership style (Druscat,1994). The transactional leadership style may even be preferable in some cases such as in stable

organizations or during times of economic stability (Bass & Avolio1990).

Gender and Social Behavior

Behavioral gender differences may be viewed in terms of Agentic and Communalqualities (Eagly, 1987). Agentic qualities involve assertiveness, control, and drive or


4/21

4

purposefulness and are characterized by aggressiveness, ambition, dominance, independence,

self-reliance, self-sufficiency, and decisiveness. Communal qualities on the other hand representconcern with the welfare of other people. These qualities include ability to devote self to others,

caring, affectionate, emotional expressiveness, empathy, helpfulness, and sympathy amongothers. Empirical evidence indicates that males in general exhibit agentic characterized while

females tend to exhibit communal characteristics (Bem, 1974; Rosener, 1990; Ruble, 1983).

Since agentic qualities appeared to be more critical for survival outside the home in paidemployment where men traditionally outnumbered women (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991),

males may have been culturally institutionalized to exhibit agentic tendecies (Williams & Best,1982). Similarly, females disproportionate domestic assignments may have institutionalized

them to exhibit communal tendencies (Williams & Best, 1982). Cultural environmentalimposition and biological role mental context provide a framework for experience internalization

that could lead males to identify with, emphasize, and perceive agentically-inclined leadershipbehaviors and styles while females identify with, emphasize, and perceive communally-inclined

behaviors and styles.

Empirical evidence indicates that male and female leaders exhibit aspects of behavioralqualities that are consistent with the agentic-communal characterization. In an investigation of

leadership behaviors from four continents for instance, Rosener (1990) distinguished male andfemale leaders according to agentic and communal qualities. In their self-reports male leaders

tended to describe their job performances as a series of 'transactions' in which subordinates wererewarded or penalized according to their performance or lack thereof. Female leaders on the

other hand advocated participation, power sharing, and self-worth enhancement. Similarly,Davidson and Ferrario (1992) found evidence from a sample of UK leaders indicating that men

rated higher on structuring in consistency with transactional leadership style. On the other hand,women rated higher on supportive and considerate behavior in consistency with transformational

leadership style. Eagly and Johnson (1990) also observed a "tendency for women to adopt amore democratic or participative style and for men to adopt a more autocratic or directive style.

Ninety-two percent of the available comparisons went in the direction of more democraticbehavior for women than men" (p. 255). This observation is consistent with female leaders

higher scores on all components of transformation leadership style that Bass et al (1996) alsoobserved.

Instructor Leadership Style and Students Gender

Transformational Leadership Style and Gender

We use the link between leadership style and gender to explore the relationship between

students and their perception of instructor leadership styles. Throughout the investigation werecognize that other mediating factors could influence students perception of the instructor

leadership style. For example, students may rate instructors who award good grades asexhibiting characteristics consistent with transformational leadership behaviors because they like

them. However, we believe it is less likely that students will pick the related items consistentlysince they are unaware of the item groupings.


5/21

5

While both transactional and transformational instructors would attempt to sense students

felt needs, transformational instructors may be more likely to probe deeper to identify and arousestudents current and long-term considerations including the dormant or higher order needs.

Capable transformational instructor would have the ability to convert the student's latent desiresinto current needs. Such instructors could broaden the scope and magnify the strength of

students' wants, desires, aspirations, and needs. The result is a transfer of energies andmotivational climate that encourages students to surpass their own expectations and personal

objectives to realize instructional goals. Such a supportive or communal and nurturingdimension of leadership behavior that is concerned with people and the development of their

capabilities and maintenance of relationships conform to stereotypical female behavior(Davidson & Ferrario, 1992; Rosener, 1990). Thus women, in comparison to men are more

likely to be democratic, interpersonally oriented, and less task oriented in certain situations(Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990)behaviors consistent with transformational leadership

style. We therefore propose that since female students are more likely to exhibit characteristicsthat are consistent with transformational leadership behavior, these students will be more likely

to perceive and rate instructors as exhibiting transformational leadership attributes.

H1: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as displayingtransformational leadership style.

Charisma. In a study of male and female leaders' subordinates responses, Bass et al

(1996) suggest that women are more likely to temper criticism with positive feedback and aremore likely to be described as charismatic. Consistent with Rosener (1990), these results render

support to the anecdotal evidence that women leaders are more likely to be charismatic (Bass,1985). Females may therefore be expected to perceive factors associated with charisma such as

feelings of esteem, affection, admiration, respect, and trust than their male counterparts. Further,due to communal behavioral qualities, women may be conditioned to suppress negativity,

ambition, dynamism, and willingness to take risks, feelings that may promote self doubt (Heinen,McGlauchlin, Legeros, & Freeman, 1975). As a result of this conditioning, female students in

contrast to their male counterparts may be 'crisis prone' and may tend to 'feel needy ofintervention' (Comer & Jolson, 1991). Such needs may draw female students to view instructors

as leader figures thus increasing the likelihood of accrediting instructors with charisma. Femalestudents may therefore be expected to be more likely than their male counterparts to perceive and

rate instructors with charisma.

H1a: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as charismatic.

Inspirational Motivation. Inspirational leaders arouse follower enthusiasm byappealing to "faith" rather than "reason" and to "emotions" rather than "intelligence" (Yukl,

1981). Inspirational leaders also tend to eschew gradual step-by-step approaches and prefer"quantum leaps." The higher emotional sensitivity of females as a result of their greater skills at

encoding and decoding emotional messages may render females more susceptible to approachesthat rely on emotions. For instance, female students may ascribe concerns that result from lack

of ability or faulty techniques to imagination and emotions. According to Licht and Dweck(1984) for example, feedback given to female students leads them to think of themselves as

incompetent, whereas male students tend to conclude that any failure is the result of lack of


6/21

6

effort or some other situational factors. Females were found to be much more likely than males

to attribute failure, especially in school-related tasks to lack of ability, even in the face ofobjective evidence that they performed better academically than their male counterparts (Dweck

& Gillard, 1975). We therefore hypothesize that female students higher emotional sensitivitymay predispose them to ascribe instructor attendance and feedback to inspirational motivation.

H1b: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing inspirational

motivation.

Intellectual Stimulation. In contrast to inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulationenhances performance through the mind rather than emotions. Intellectually stimulating leaders

challenge their followers to reject conformity and guide them into novel approaches. Intellectualstimulation within instructional setting thus entails the encouragement of students to work

"smarter" rather than "harder" (Sujan, 1986). The instructor guides students in structuring theirthoughts to work "smarter." Eagly and Johnson (1990) found male students to be more likely to

employ rational linear thinking while their female counterparts tended to rely on intuition and to

employ non-traditional approaches to solving problems. Research also indicates that unlike theirmale counterparts, females who are highly motivated to achieve (such as college students) do notalways establish traditional goals for themselves and they do not always persist on predictable

molds when confronted with failure (Dweck, 1986). Such right-brainedapproaches may requiremore instructor guidance to fit into the traditional institutional structures that may mean that

female students have more opportunity to attribute instructor actions to intellectual stimulation.

H1c: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as providing intellectualstimulation.

Individualized Consideration. Leaders who use individualized consideration tend to

personalize interaction with followers in order to remain responsive to each follower's individualneeds (Bass 1985). As a behavioral attribute, individualized consideration is consistent with the

culturally ascribed female communal characteristics (Rosener 1990). Consequently, females maybe expected to perceive and acknowledge such behaviors more than the males. For instance, Lee

and Alvares (1977) found that female subordinates were more likely than their male counterpartsto describe their leaders as exhibiting individually considerate behaviors. Therefore, we

hypothesize that female students are more likely than their male counterparts to evaluate theirinstructors as engaging in individualized considerate behaviors.

H1d: Female students are more likely to rate their instructors as individually

considerate.

Transactional Leadership Style and Gender

Transactional leadership behavior emphasizes task structuring and its accomplishmentand focuses on the exchange that takes place between a leader and followers (Bass, 1998). The

'transactions' or relationship between the leader and follower are enhanced by a sequence ofbargains (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman, 1997) and involves the use of incentives to

influence effort as well as clarification of the work needed to obtain rewards (Bass, 1985).


7/21

7

Previous research identifies association between components of transactional leadership, gender

and resultant outcomes (Eagly & Johnson, 1990; Rosener, 1990). For instance, due to theiragentic stereotypical inclination, males tend to respond to the task structure and identify more

with the transactional components of leadership situation (Davidson & Ferrario, 1992). Thetransactional leadership style is based on a rational model that is compatible with the expectancy

theory that underlies traditional thinking (Comer et al., 1995). Such rational approaches aremore consistent with agentic rather than communal characteristics. Female students are

therefore predicted to be less likely to identify with transactional qualities and may be less likelyto rate instructors as displaying transactional leadership behaviors.

H2: Female students are less likely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional

leadership style.

Contingent Reward. The contingent reward or reinforcement dimension of transactionalleadership is based on the assumption that reward is the overriding principle for effective

performance. Follower needs are identified and then linked to both what the leader wants to

achieve and the rewards associated with the effort of the follower. Instructional setting is idealfor investigating whether student perception of instructor's use of contingent reinforcementvaries by gender. Most instructors specify the benefits that students receive if a predetermined

short-term performance is reached. Goals for students can include the contribution of the courseto grades and overall GPA that determines student competitiveness, job prospects, and 'quality.'

The instructor can reward successful performance with good grade, praise, commendation, etc.,while penalizing poor performance by withholding reward. Few gender differences have been

noticed in the way people respond to penalty or "punishment" that is "contingent" onperformance (Comer et al., 1995). However, scanty literature indicates that women may be more

concerned than men with "punishment" that is perceived as arbitrary or unmerited (Shul,Remington, & Berl, 1990). Because of their communal behavioral inclination and non-linear

approaches to tasks, female students may be less likely to view instructors as incorporating alltheir inputs in considering the reward. This may further mean that female students are less

likely to perceive a stronger linkage between their efforts and their achievements (expectancy).Given the above argument, it is unlikely that female students will perceive instructors as users of

contingent reward.

H2a: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as employing contingent reward.

Management-By-Exception. Management-by-exception (MBE) provides for little or nocontact between followers and their leaders. Leaders take action only when things go wrong

(active) or when standards are unmet (passive). Active MBE represents a style where leaderstake an active role by continuously monitoring followers performance to avoid any possible error

that might emerge while passive MBE characterizes leaders who intervene and take action onlyafter the occurrence of a problem (Yammarino, Spanger, & Bass, 1993). Although MBE may

provide opportunity for student initiative and pro-action, the emphasis on correctionthat focuseson negative variance or error may be counteractive. Research indicates that male leaders are

more likely to practice MBE (Bass, 1985) and that males are generally more responsive toleaders displaying individualized consideration and those that use contingent reward or

management-by-exception (Comer et al., 1995). Female subordinates on the other hand prefer


8/21

8

contingent reward and those capable of intellectually stimulating them (Comer et al., 1995). If

female students in contrast to their male counterparts are more needy of instructor attention andintervention as argued earlier, then female students may tend to view instructor intervention as

normal. Consequently, female students are less likely to perceive instructors as managing-by-exception.

H2b: Female students are less likely to rate instructors as managing-by-exception.

Students' Responses to Instructor Leadership Styles

A secondary purpose of this study was to investigate male and female student responses

to instructor leadership style, specifically students' perception of the instructors ability to elicitextra effort, leader effectiveness, and satisfaction with instructor. According to the FRL model,

transformational leadership style is positively associated with follower motivation, satisfaction,willingness to put extra effort, and perception of leader effectiveness (Shamir et al., 1998).

Further, empirical evidence associates transformational leadership style with follower level of

satisfaction and performance (Bycio et al., 1995; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996;Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993).Shamir et al (1993), for example, reviewed more than 20 studies that found

transformational leadership to be positively associated with followers performances andperceptions. Lowe et al (1996) reviewed another 35 empirical studies of transformational

leadership and found transformational leadership positively correlated with followers rated andobjectively measured performance. Hypothesis 3 following is based on the suggested link

between transformational leadership behavior and followers rating of leader effectiveness, abilityto elicit extra effort and satisfaction with the leader. Based on the earlier argument and

prediction that females are more likely to identify with behaviors that are consistent withtransformational leadership style, we predict that female students will be more likely to rate

instructors higher on these three outcome variables.

H3: Female students are more likely to rate instructors as effective, eliciting extra effortand satisfaction.

Methods

Measures of Leadership

The study uses a modified version of Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) (Bass& Avolio, 1995) to test the above hypotheses. The MLQ focuses on individual behaviors as

observed by the followers and assesses the leadership behaviors that motivate followers to

achieve expected performance. Used widely in various settings to study transactional andtransformational leadership styles, the instrument has shown consistent internal reliability (Bass& Avolio, 1997). It contains 36 items that distinguish seven dimensions of transactional,

transformational, and laissez-faire leadership (not considered in the current study) styles. It alsoincludes nine items measuring learner willingness to put extra effort, the effectiveness of the

leader, and satisfaction with the leader. The MLQ items are based on a 5-point scale (0=Not atall to 4=Frequently, if not always). A pair of rating forms was administered per class: the self-

rating form for instructors and rater form for students. Although we collected the instructor self-


9/21

9

rating information, the instructor sub-sample size was too small to be used in the current study.

We also modified the FRL framework and existing instrumentation to fit the instructional setting(Walumbwa & Kuchinke, 1999).

Sample and Procedure

We collected data from 478 students from a large Midwest research oriented university.

The non-random sample selection was based on the faculty willingness to participate in thestudy. Because of the nature of the study, we selected relatively small classes to allow for

student-instructor interaction. Consequently, we collected data from six colleges. The studentsample included undergraduates and graduates. Due to missing information, about 10 percent of

the questionnaires were unusable. This loss could have arisen from the fact that the instrumentspecifically requires respondents to leave items blank if they do not know the answer. The

remaining sample of 90 percent (N=429) usable questionnaires did not appear to be statisticallydifferent from those that were omitted. The final sample consisted of 57% female and 43% male

and averaged 25.24 (SD=7.12) years in age ranging from 18 to 53 years old. Of the total

participants, 226 were undergraduates (47% female) and averaged 21.61 (SD=2.68) years in ageand 4.84 (SD=2.74) years of part-time working experience. The graduates (61% female)averaged 29.28 (SD=8.26) years in age and full-time working experience of 5.02 (SD=7.73)

years. The faculty (29% female) averaged 47.33 (SD=7.55) years in age with 19.57 (SD=7.69)years of full time working experience.

Results

The focus of this study was the comparison of female and male students' perception of

instructors' style of leadership. Tables 1 and 2 following provide summary statistics, reliabilities,and correlation matrices for the seven leadership scales. The descriptive statistics reveal ranges

of mean scores and standard deviations that are consistent with those reported in previous studies(e.g., Bass & Avolio, 1997). Save for the combined transactional leadership dimension, all the

measures on internal consistency assessed using Cronbachs alpha ranges from =. 70 to = 91

meeting the generally accepted criteria of = .70 (Nunally, 1967). We also combined MBE-A andMBE-P into MBE to meet the study criteria of =. 70. The inability of the combined transactional

leadership measure to meet the = .70 criterion is probably contributed by the negativecorrelation between the contingent reward scale and the MBE components. Despite this

potential shortcoming (Goodwin, Wofford, & Whittington, 1998), the instrument is reasonablyreliable at tapping students perception of their instructors leadership behaviors.

-----------------------------------

Insert 1 & 2 Table Here------------------------------------

Table 3 following provides the results of the regression analysis. Since the demographicvariables of age and level of educational achievement affect leadership behavior ratings, we

controlled for these variables in our analysis. Similarly, level of academic achievement wasdivided into undergraduates and graduates. In hypotheses 1 and 1a to 1d we predicted that


10/21

10

female students would be more likely to rate their instructors as displaying transformational

leadership behavior and its corollaries. As Table 3 indicates, these hypotheses were supportedfor the combined transformational leadership style (p


11/21

11

counterparts to rate instructors as employing a system of contingent reward. This anomaly is

probably accounted for by the negative correlation between the contingent reward and MBEitems. The anomaly disappears when we use the graduate sub-sample. Table 4b shows results

that support the hypotheses that female graduates compared to their male counterparts are lesslikely to rate their instructors as displaying transactional leadership style (p


12/21

12

Although previous studies were contextualized in traditional work-oriented organizations while

the current studys context is instructional, the supportive evidence is consistent with therobustness of the transformations leadership behavior dimension of the FRL model. Lack of

statistically significant association between the outcome variables and gender may however bethe result of emphasis on gender equality in academic settings that may confound the relationship

between these variables. The structured nature of academic programs may make it difficult forstudents to decompose their experience at the school into components that relate to their

interaction with individual course instructors. For instance, it may be difficult to define non-contingent reward in a classroom setting.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that male students as opposed to female students would rate

instructors high on transactional leadership attributes. This hypothesis was also largelysupported and the evidence is consistent with previous research (Eagly & Johnson, 1990;

Rosener, 1990) that identifies males with behaviors consistent with transactional leadershipqualities. However, the results did not hold for contingent reward but contradicted our

hypothesis in the undergraduate sub-sample thereby supporting Comers et al. (1995) argument

that female subordinates tend to prefer demonstration of contingent reward (Table 4a). Thecorrelation matrix shows a similar pattern of negative correlation between the contingent rewardand MBE leadership scale. On the other hand, the matrix registered positive correlation between

the contingent reward item and all the transformational leadership behavior items. Our finding onthe gender-contingent reward rating thus revisits an important question regarding the

classification of contingent reward under transactional leadership behavior. Is the classificationof contingent reward under transactional leadership dimension appropriate (Goodwin et al.,

1998) or is there a need to revise the entire MLQ instrument for future studies?

Hypothesis 3 stated that by virtue of their likelihood to rate instructors withtransformational leadership behavior, female students would rate instructors as eliciting extra

effort, effective, and as satisfying. This hypothesis was not supported. This result may not besurprising given the structured nature of academic setting such as the requirement that students

take certain classes regardless of whether they like the course or not. Such restrictions ininstructional setting confound the relationship in as far as students may register for certain

classes merely to graduate or to meet registration conditions. It may be difficult to capture thetrue relationships in such situations where the end justifies the means. Students may reserve

their decision about the perception of a particular instructors ability to elicit extra effort,effectiveness, and satisfaction until they receive their final grades.

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

While the study shows promise for gender-leadership style-instructional setting research,

caution is necessary in interpreting the results due to constraints such as sample homogeneity. Alarger and more diverse student body in terms of ethnicity and other attributes could constitute a

rich and better testing sample. Also, because there were only 21 faculty (15 males and 6females), leader subjects were insufficient for assessing the impact of the match between

female/male students with female/male instructors. Future research may consider the effects ofmatching follower-leader gender that could affect subordinate perceptions and outcome variables

(Comer et al., 1995).


13/21

13

Another constraint of the present study is that since leadership qualities require longer

and closer relationship to discern the use of FRL model in academic setting may be limited bythe nature of student-instructor relationship within a semester. Perhaps the model could be more

applicable among graduates and their academic advisors where instructor-student interactionentails a much longer time in which to discern the dynamics at play. Transformational

leadership behavior evokes building a strong and productive instructor-student relationship byanimating collaboration between the instructor and assisting in the production of a widely set

norms, values, and beliefs consistent with continuous improvement for students (Leithwood,Menzies, Jantzi, & Leithwood, 1996). However, since transformational leadership introduces a

number of complex variables that in some cases appear to defy measurement, presentingquantitative and qualitative assessment of these dynamics particularly in an academic setting

portends a great challenge to researchers (Gold & Quatroche, 1994).

Despite these limitations the study provides some intriguing results that hitherto were notidentified in the literature. In general, the results indicating that female consistently rated

instructors higher on transformational leadership behaviors is consistent with the notion that

gender differences may modify follower perception of leadership behavior. The findings furtherreinforce Druscats (1994) call for more research that explore gender differences in leadershipstyles and in transformational and transactional leadership styles in particular from subordinate

perspective to clarify and possibly replicate the current findings. In conclusion, the results ofthis study serve as a beginning for the exploration of issues adjoining the gender-leadership

behavior interface in academic setting. This is particularly important at a time whenorganizations are increasingly defining themselves in terms of know-how and as intellectual

capital becomes the distinguishing value-creating mechanism for competitive organizations(Leonard-Barton, 1995).

REFERENCES

Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1995). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire:Technical report. Palo Alto, CA: Mind Garden.

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance and beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share thevision. Organizational Dynamics, 18(Winter), 19-31.

Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, Military, and educational impact.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.


14/21

14

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1990). The implications for transactional leadership for individual,

team, and organizational development. In R.W. Woodman & W.A. Pasmore (Eds.),Research in organizational change and development (Vol.4) (pp. 231-272). Greenwich: JAI

Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership: A response to critiques. In M.M. Chemers & R. Ayman (Eds.), Leadership theory and research: Perspectives and

directions (pp. 49-80). San Diego: Academic Press.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual leader form,rater, and scoring key for MLQ (Form 5x-Short). Redwood City: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership: Manual for the multifactor leadership

questionnaire. Palo Alto: Mind Garden.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Atwater L. (1996). Transformational and transactional leadership of

men and women. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45(1), 5-34.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.

Bernstein, D. A., & Roy, E. J., Srull, T. K., & Wickens, C. D. (1988). Psychology. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

Burke, W. W. (1986). Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivasta (Ed.), Executive power

(pp. 51-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Bycio, P., Hackett, R. D., & Allen, J. S. (1995). Further assessment of Basss (1985)conceptualization of transactional and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 49(2), 112-114.

Comer, L. B. & Jolson, M. A. (1991). Perception of gender stereotypic behavior: An exploratorystudy of women in selling. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, XI(Winter),

43-59.

Comer, L. B., Jolson, M. A., Dubinsky, A. J., & Yammarino, F. J. (1995). When the salesmanager is a woman: An exploration into the relationship between salespeople's gender and

their responses to leadership styles. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,15(4), 17-32.

Davidson, M. & Ferrario, M. (1992). A comparative study of gender and management style.

Target Management Development Review, 5(1), 13-17.


15/21

15

Den Hartog, D. N., Van Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus

transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational psychology,7(1), 19-34.

Druscat, V. U. (1994). Gender and leadership style: Transformational and transactional

leadership in the Roman Catholic Church. Leadership Quarterly, 5(1), 99-119.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational forces affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10),1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S., Gillard, D. (1975). Expectancy statements as determinants of reactions to failure:

Sex differences in persistence and expectancy change. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 32(6), 1077-1084.

Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale:

Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 233-57.

Forgionne, G. A., & Peters, V. E. (1982). Differences in job motivation and satisfaction among

female and male managers. Human Relations, 35(2), 101-118.

Futrell, C. M. (1984). Salespeople's perceptions of sex differences in sales managers. Journal ofPersonal Selling and Sales Management, IV(May), 19-23.

Goodwin, V., Wofford, J. C.,& Whittington, J. C. (1998). An empirically based extension of the

transformational leadership construct. Paper presented to the 1998 Academy ofManagement Meeting. San Diego, CA.

Gold, J. A., & Quatroche, T. J. (1994). Student government: A testing ground for

transformational leadership principles. New Directions for student services,66(Summer)31-43.

Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Supervisors evaluations and surbodinates perception of

transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 695-702.

Heinen, J. S., McGlauchlin, D., Legeros, C., & Freeman, J. (1975). Developing the woman

manager. Personnel Journal, 54(5), 282-86.

House, R. J. & Mitchell, T. R. (1974). Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of ContemporaryBusiness, 3(4), 81-97.


16/21

16

Howell, J.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus

of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-business-unitperformance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891-902.

Jacobs, R. L. & McClelland, D. C. (1994). Moving up the corporate ladder: A longitudinal study

of leadership motive pattern and managerial success in women and men. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 46(1), 32-41.

Lee, D. M. & Alvares, K. M. (1977). Effects of sex description and evaluations of supervisory

behavior in a simulated industrial setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 405-10.

Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D., & Leithwood, J. (1996). School restructuring,transformational leadership and the amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety, Stress, and

Coping: An International Journal, 9(3), 199-215.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellspring of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of

Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Licht, B. G., & Dweck, C. S. (1984). Determinants of academic achievement: The interactions of

childrens achievement orientations with skill area. Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 628-636.

Lowe, K. B., Kroeck, K. G., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness correlates of transformationaland transactional leadership: A meta-analysis review of the MLQ literature. Leadership

Quarterly, 7(3),385-425.

Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Fetter, R., (1993). Substitutes for leadership and themanagement of professionals. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 1-44.

Rosener, J. B. (1990). Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review, 68(November-December),119-125.

Ruble, T. L. (1983). Sex stereotypes: Issues of change in the 1970s. Sex Roles, 9(3), 397-402.

Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effect of charismatic

leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577-594.

Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. (1998). Correlates of charismatic leaderbehavior in military units: Surbodinates attitudes, unit characteristics, and superior

appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4(4), 387-594.

Shul, P. L., Remington, S., & Berl, R. L. (1990). Assessing gender differences in relationshipsbetween supervisory behaviors and job-related outcomes in the industrial salesforce.

Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, X(Summer), 1-16.


17/21

17

Sujan, H. (1986). Smarter versus harder: An exploratory attributional analysis of salespeople's

motivation. Journal of Marketing Research, XXIII(February), 41-9.

Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). Employment and earnings Washington, D.C.: Bureau of

Labor Statistics.

Vinacke, W. E. (1952). The Psychology of Thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,Inc.

Walumbwa F. O., & Kuchinke, K. P. (1999). HRD faculty as leaders: The application of the

Full Range Leadership theory to graduate level HRD instruction. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.),The Academy of Human Resource Development. Conference Proceedings (pp.1210-1216).

Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Human Resource Development.

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

Yammarino, F. J., & Bass, B. J. (1990). Long-term forecasting of transformational leadership

and its effects among naval officers: Some preliminary findings: In K. E. Clark & M. B.Clark (Eds.), Measure of leadership (pp. 151-169). West Orange, NJ: Leadership Library of

America.

Yammarino, F. J., Spangler, W. D., & Bass, B. J. (1993). Transformational leadership andperformance: A longitudinal investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 4(1), 81-102.

Yukl, G. (1981). Leadership in organizations. Eaglewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall


18/21

18

TABLE 1

Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations among Leadership Scales, and OutcomeVariables

N M SD 1 2 3 4

1. Transformational 20 3.50 .85 .91

2. Charisma 8 3.40 .87 .76 .94**3. Inspirational

Motivation

4 3.63 1.02 .70 .85** .74**

4. Intellctual

Stimulation

4 3.59 1.02 .70 .83** .70** .57**

5. IndividualizedConsideration

4 3.49 1.08 .74 .86** .74** .63** .65**

6. Transactional 12 2.67 .56 .58 .43** .40** .38** .35**

7. Contingent Reward

4 3.60 1.05 .74 .82** .73** .70** .71**

8. Mgt-By-Exception

8 2.20 .80 .70 -.10* -.05 -.08 -.11*

9. Laissez-Faire 4 1.71 .72 .51 -.28** -.23** -.20** -.27**10. Extra Effort 3 3.58 1.25 .86 .75** .69** .61** .61**

11. Effectiveness 4 3.63 1.19 .80 .79** .72** .69** .64**12. Satisfaction 2 3.74 1.27 .70 .76** .68** .63** .65**

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

6. Transactional .33**

10. Contingent Reward

.71** .53**

11.Mgt-By-Exception -.13** .78** -.12*

12. Laissez-Faire .05 .18** -.33** .45**10. Extra Effort .69** .34** .70** -.11* -.25**

11. Effectiveness .70** .35** .75** -.13** -.33** .74**

12. Satisfaction .68** .34** .75** -.15** -.32** .70** .70**

*P < .05; **p < .01


19/21

19

TABLE 2

Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities for the Study Variable by Gender[Female Sample (N=245) Below Diagonal and Male Sample (N=184) Above Diagonal]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

. Mean 3.41 3.30 3.58 3.50 3.36 2.74 3.54 2.34 1.74 3.50 3.59 3

. Std. Deviation .86 .87 .96 .99 1.16 .60 .99 .72 .92 1.32 1.18

. Alpha () .91 .77 .63 .70 .78 .64 .70 .70 .40 .90 .81

. Transformational 3.57 .84 .90 .94** .83** .84** .89** .56** .84** .11 -.22** .74** .79**

. Charisma 3.46 .86 .75 .93** .73** .72** .78** .55** .76** .17* -.18* .73** .76**

. InspirationalMotivation

3.68 1.05 .74 .84** .75** .60** .67** .44** .71** .06 .20** .61** .73**

. IntellectualStimulation

3.66 1.03 .72 .82** .67** .56** .67** .48** .73** .10 -.18* .53** .56**

. IndividualizedConsideration

3.59 1.02 .70 .84** .70** .61** .64** .45** .76** .04 .23** .68** .72**

. Transactional 2.62 .53 .52 .34** .32** .34** .27** .24** .59** .83** .11 .40** .42**0. Contingent

Reward3.66 1.10 .78 .80** .70** .70** .70** .68** .50** .05 -.26** .69** .76**

1. Management-By-Exception

2.12 .70 .70 -.24** -.19** -.16* -.24** -.26** .74** -.22** .31** .02 -.01 -

2. Laissezz-Faire 1.68 .73 .62 -.34** -.28** -.21** -.35** -.36** .25** -.39** .58** -.21** -.28** -3. Extra Effort 3.64 1.19 .82 .75** .64** .61** .67** .70** .30** .71** -.21** -.30** .74**4. Effectiveness 3.66 1.20 .80 .79** .70** .67** .69** .68** .31** .74** -.23** -.37** .74**

5. Satisfaction 3.77 1.29 .70 .75** .65** .60** .69** .68** .32** .76** -.24** -.36** .75** .84**

*P < .05; **p < .01

TABLE 3

Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable:

Transfor-

mational

Dependent

Variable:

Charisma

Dependent

Variable:

Inspirational

Motivation

Dependent

Variable:

Intellectual

Stimulation

Dependent

Variable:

Individualized

Consideration

Dependent

Variable:

Transactional

Leadership

Constant 3.656 3.580 3.698 3.680 3.744 2.624Gender -.168* -.178* -.089 -.156 -.241* .089

Age -.131 -.214 .025 .009 -.260 -.191**

Degree .023 .100 -.089 -.063 .080 .289***

R2 .013 .017 .003 .007 .019 .051

Adjusted R2 .006 .010 -.004 .000 .012 .044

F 1.847 2.396* .497 .997 2.760* 7.596***

N 429 429 429 429 429 429

IndependentVariable

DependentVariable:

Contingent

Reward

DependentVariable:

Mgt -By-

Exception

DependentVariable:

Extra Effort

DependentVariable:

Effectiveness

DependentVariable:

Satisfaction

Constant 3.627 2.122 3.756 3.559 3.716

Gender -.149 .208*** -.139 -.075 -.087

Age -158 -.208* -.140 .068 -.063

Degree .309** .279*** -.021 .093 .197

R2 .017 .049 .006 .004 .005

Adjusted R2 .010 .042 -.001 -.003 -.002

F 2.455* 7.259*** .867 .582 .728

N 429 429 429 429 429p


20/21

20

TABLE 4a

Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable

(Undergraduates Controlling for Age)

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable:

Transfor-

mational

Dependent

Variable:

Charisma

Dependent

Variable:

Inspirational

Motivation

Dependent

Variable:

Intellectual

Stimulation

Dependent

Variable:

Individualized

Consideration

Dependent

Variable:

Transactiona

Leadership

Constant 3.792 3.704 3.750 3.948 3.851 2.561

Gender -.182 -.197* -.129 -.137 -.248** .026

Age -.009 -.009 -.003 -.013 -.011 .007

R2 .023 .023 .006 .017 .024 .014

Adjusted R2 .014 .014 -.003 .008 .015 .006

F 2.545

2.647 .648 1.917 2.739

1.643

N 226 226 226 226 226 226Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable:

Contingent

Reward

Dependent

Variable:

Management -

By-Exception

Dependent

Variable:

Extra Effort

Dependent

Variable:

Effectiveness

Dependent

Variable:

Satisfaction

Constant 4.134 1.775 3.932 4.228 4.329

Gender -.209 .191* -.246

-.138 -.146

Age -.012 .016** -.011 -.018* -.017

R2 .026 .057 .016 .022 .017

Adjusted R2

.017 .048 .008 .013 .009F 2.996* 6.714*** 1.872 2.489

1.971

N 226 226 226 226 226

p


21/21

21

TABLE 4b

Results from Regression Analysis for the Leadership Dimensions and the Independent Variable(Graduates Controlling for Age)

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable:

Transfor-

mational

Dependent

Variable:

Charisma

Dependent

Variable:

Inspirational

Motivation

Dependent

Variable:

Intellectual

Stimulation

Dependent

Variable:

Individualized

Consideration

Dependent

Variable:

Transactional

Leadership

Constant 2.777 2.692 2.915 2.881 2.707 2.455

Gender -.179 -.173 .083 -.218 -.251

.140

Age .035 .033** .033 .035 .039** .026

R2 .057 .051 .035 .042 .047 .013

Adjusted R2 .048 .042 .026** .033 .038 .003

F 6.059** 5.37** 3.653* 4.404** 4.918** 1.336

N 203 203 203 203 203 203

Independent

Variable

Dependent

Variable:

Contingent

Reward

Dependent

Variable:

Management

-By-Exception

Dependent

Variable:

Extra Effort

Dependent

Variable:

Effectiveness

Dependent

Variable:

Satisfaction

Constant 2.693 2.336 2.671 2.759 2.255Gender -.102 .236* -.047 -.042 -.079

Age .035** -.014 .041** .034* .060***

R2 .034 .036 .037 .026 .072

Adjusted R2

.024 .026 .027 .016 .063F 3.458* 3.735* 3.779* 2.655 7.700***

N 203 203 203 203 203p

Documents

Walumbwa - Transational vs. Transformational Leadership (Gender Differences)