qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyiuiopasi
dfghjklzxcvbinmqwertyuiopasdfighjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdifghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertiyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqiwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
Bachelor Thesis Organization & Strategy
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxicvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqiwertyuiopa
Leadership change in
sdfighjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
female- and malemqiwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdifghijklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbi
dominated industries
nmiqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdifghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
Name: M.A. van Bijnen
nmrtyuiopasdfghjklizxcvbnimqwertyuiopasd
ANR: s545868
Supervisor: David P. Kroon, M.Phil
fghjklzxcivbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
Number of words: 6029
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
Date: 11-06-2010
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbinm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbinmqwertyiuiopas
dfghjklzxcivbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbin
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzixcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfg
PREFACE
This thesis is a result of three months research that has been done in the field of „Organization &
Strategy‟. In addition, this thesis can be seen as a final assignment for the bachelor
„Bedrijfseconomie‟ and as a preparation for the next master study.
I enjoyed working on this thesis because of the interesting subject. I would like to thank David P.
Kroon for his support and good advice that he gave me. I learned a lot and without his
instructions, this thesis would have attained an inferior quality.
Melanie van Bijnen
Tilburg, June 11th 2010
1
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
CEOs of large companies are often male leaders. In 1997 only two female CEOs were mentioned
in the list of the Fortune 500 (Oakley, 2000). What is the reason for this big difference? Are male
leaders superior to female leaders? These questions result in researching gender leadership
differences, which will be done by utilizing theories of Eagly (1990; 1992; 2000; 2001; 2003;
2003) which she has written with other researchers. Three main differences will be discussed in
this thesis of which the first is that women have a more interpersonal and task style than men.
Besides this, women have a more democratic style and men have a more autocratic style (Eagly &
Johnson, 1990). At last, women have an advantage contrasted to men, because women have a
more transformational style and they are less related to laissez-faire leadership style than men
(Eagly & Carli, 2003). These three different types of styles are not mutually exclusive, which
means that a leader can have an interpersonal style, a democratic style and a transformational style
at the same time.
Afterwards, leadership styles of men and women will be compared in female- and maledominated industries. One of the results is that when male leaders are in a female-dominated
industry, they showed up less pressure than female leaders. In addition, task style is adapted by
male leaders when they are in a female-dominated industry. Another result is that women change
their interpersonal style when they are in a male-dominated industry. There is also a relationship
between interpersonal style and mental health (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
Finally the way a leader can change his leadership style will be examined by utilizing Smith‟s
(2000) R-E-A-L model of personal transformation. The first step that a leader has to experience is
recognizing, which results in a superior self-awareness. After increasing his self-awareness, a
leader has to explore his constituents and mindsets. The disadvantage of constituents and mindsets
is that they can take control over a leader. When a leader has passed this stage, he is capable to
actualize, which means he can perform consciously. Afterwards, he has to change and he has to
identify his identity before he could take the last step, namely leading. Finally, in practice a leader
can better react to particular situations and he sees the true wants of a company (Smith, 2000).
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE
1
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
5
1.1 Problem indication
5
1.2 Problem statement
5
1.3 Research questions
6
1.4 Demarcation and definitions
6
1.5 Relevance
6
1.6 Research design and data collection
7
1.7 Outline of the thesis
7
CHAPTER 2 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER
8
2.1 Introduction
8
2.2 Interpersonal and task styles
8
2.3 Democratic versus autocratic styles
9
2.4 Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles
9
2.5 Conclusion
10
CHAPTER 3 BEHAVIOR IN FEMALE- AND MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES
11
3.1 Introduction
11
3.2 Female-dominated industries
11
3.3 Male-dominated industries
12
3.4 Conclusion
13
3
CHAPTER 4 CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
14
4.1 Introduction
14
4.2 R-E-A-L Model of personal transformation
14
4.3 Experiences of reviewers
16
4.4 Conclusion
16
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
18
5.1 Conclusion
18
5.2 Discussion /limitations
19
5.3 Academic and practical recommendations
19
REFERENCES
21
4
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem indication
It is well known that the CEOs of large companies are often male leaders. In 1997 a list of the
Fortune 500 appeared in which only two female CEOs were mentioned (Oakley, 2000). A reason
for this phenomenon is called the glass ceiling, which includes a pellucid blockade which
withholds women to attain a higher position in the company (Morrison, White, van Velsor & The
Center for Creative Leadership, 1987). To break the glass ceiling stereotyping about gender has to
change and training programs which encourage women to attain a higher position have to be
developed. Besides this, it is important that the variety in management will be accepted by the
company (Oakley, 2000).
Besides the glass ceiling, another possible reason could be that the leadership styles between men
and women are different and that men are better suited for a leadership position. The theory of
Eagly and Johnson (1990) can be utilized to examine this possible reason. One of their statements
is, for example, that women have a more democratic leadership style in comparison to men, who
have a more autocratic leadership style. Subsequently, it is important to know whether it is a
male- or a female- dominated industry in which the leader is. Namely, Gardiner and Tiggemann
(1999) state that discrimination has more influence on female leaders when they are in a maledominated industry than when they are in a female-dominated industry. Furthermore, in a maledominated industry women change their leadership style to a more male leadership style to
prevent losing power (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). To understand how it is possible that leaders can
change their leadership style, Smith‟s (2000) R-E-A-L model of personal transformation can be
utilized. This model consists of the following four elements: recognizing, exploring, actualizing
and leading.
1.2 Problem statement
The issues that emerge in the introduction will be respectively discussed in this thesis. The base of
this thesis will focus on the following problem statement:
To what extent do male and female leaders change their leadership style when they are in male- or
female-dominated industries?
5
1.3 Research questions
Before the problem statement could be answered, the following three research questions need to
be examined:
-
How do male and female managers differ in leadership styles?
-
How do male and female leaders behave in male- and female-dominated industries?
-
How can leadership styles change?
1.4 Demarcation and definitions
Three main theories will be used in this thesis. The first theory is Eagly‟s (1990; 1992; 2000;
2001; 2003; 2003) theory, which she wrote with other different researchers, about leadership and
gender. The second is Gardiner and Tiggemann‟s (1999) theory, which is about working in
female- or male-dominated industries. At last, the third theory, Smith‟s (2000) R-E-A-L model of
personal transformation, will explain the way people can change their leadership style.
To be sure the main variables are well understood, some definitions are given:
Gender: “The term gender refers to the meanings that societies and individuals ascribe to female
and male categories” (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt & van Engen, 2003, p.570).
Leadership style: ”Relatively stable patterns of behavior displayed by leaders” (Eagly et al., 2003,
p.569).
Male-dominated industry: “Environments which are numerically dominated by men” (Gardiner &
Tiggemann, 1999, p.301). “The male-dominated industries were academia, the automotive
industry, information technology, management and accounting consultancies and the timber
industry” (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999, p.305).
Female-dominated industry: Environments which are numerically dominated by women (Gardiner
& Tiggemann, 1999). “Female-dominated industries were early childhood education, nursing and
hairdressing” (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999, p.305).
1.5 Relevance
The practical relevance of this thesis is to help a company with the choice to employ a female or a
male leader. In addition, it is important that a company understands the way a leader can change
his or her leadership style. Despite this practical relevance, little is written about this subject. This
6
thesis is an addition to the existing theory, because this thesis tries to achieve synergy by
combining the theory of Eagly (1990; 1992; 2000; 2001; 2003; 2003), Gardiner and Tiggemann‟s
(1999) theory and Smith‟s (2000) R-E-A-L model of personal transformation.
This thesis is interesting for everybody who wants to know more about this subject, but
particularly for a company that is looking for a new leader. After reading this thesis, the company
knows more about the behavior of a male and female leader and understands the way a leader can
change his or her behavior.
1.6 Research design and data collection
This thesis is a descriptive study, which will be done by means of a literature review.
Initially, secondary data will be collected to give answers to the research questions. To obtain this
secondary data, the catalogues and information sources of Tilburg University‟s library have been
used. Databases like ABI/inform, JSTOR and Online Contents Journal Articles UVT were useful.
In addition, Google scholar has been used to obtain academic resources. If these search methods
produce useful papers, then reference lists of these papers could be examined to obtain more
useful papers. This is called the snowball effect and can bring many benefits. However, a
disadvantage is that an important-looking paper, which appears in the reference list, not always
can be found. In addition to secondary data, a sampling technique can be used. However, in this
thesis secondary data will only be used, a sampling technique will be proposed in chapter five.
1.7 Outline of the thesis
First the leadership styles of men and woman will be described. These styles will be divided into
interpersonal and task styles, democratic versus autocratic styles, and, at last, transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire styles. Subsequently, the behavior of male and female leaders in
male- and female-dominated industries will be explained. Afterwards, the R-E-A-L model of
personal transformation will be utilized to clarify the possibility for male and female leaders to
change their leadership style. Finally, the problem statement will be answered, issues will be
discussed and recommendations for future research will be given.
7
CHAPTER 2 LEADERSHIP AND GENDER
2.1 Introduction
A lot of differences between men and women exist, including their leadership style. To
understand this difference, the social role theory of sex differences and similarities of Eagly,
Wood and Diekman (2000) can be utilized. This theory states that leadership roles and
expectations based on the leader‟s gender influence the behavior of a leader, which results in a
creation of sex roles. Observers suppose that these roles will follow the concentration of social
roles in the family and at work. This theory is the foundation of the leadership differences
between men and women, which many theories are based on. Despite these many theories, in this
thesis theories written by Eagly together with other researchers (1990; 1992; 2000; 2001; 2003;
2003) will only be used. Three main differences will be discussed, namely interpersonal and task
styles, democratic versus autocratic styles, and finally transformational, transactional, and laissezfaire styles. These three different types of styles are not mutually exclusive, which means that a
leader can have an interpersonal style, a democratic style and a transformational style at the same
time. First, these main differences will be clarified and, subsequently, they will be applied on
differences between men and women.
2.2 Interpersonal and task styles
The first difference is between interpersonal and task styles, which was first published by Bales
(1950) who suggested that there exist two different types of leadership styles. The Ohio State
studies (Halpin, 1957) expanded this by including the difference between task and interpersonal
orientation. A task orientation is defined as “initiation of structure, included behavior such as
having subordinates follow rules and procedures, maintaining high standards for performance, and
making leader and subordinate roles explicit” (Eagly & Johnson, 1990, p.236). On the other hand,
interpersonal orientation is defined as “consideration, included behavior such as helping and
doing favors for subordinates, looking out for their welfare, explaining procedures, and being
friendly and available” (Eagly & Johnson, 1990, p.236).
The analysis of Eagly and Johnson (1990) proved that interpersonal and task styles correspond to
their major hypothesis that stereotypic gender differences were less apparent in organizational
studies than in assessment or laboratory studies, because confined decision-making roles were
present in organizational studies (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). This result fits another
argument that companies, utilizing criteria for choosing a new leader, create minimum
possibilities for women and men to adapt their leadership style to a stereotypic style. When no
8
attention is paid to the difference between the organizational, assessment, and laboratory studies,
gender deviations in interpersonal and task styles differ little from each other. However, a small
difference between women and men is that women attach more importance to interpersonal
relationships and to achieving tasks (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). This is in contrast to the general
forecast, which says that men attach more importance to achieving tasks than women (Eagly,
Makhijani & Klonsky, 1992). Another result of Eagly and Johnson‟s (1990) meta-analysis is that
leaders are more task-oriented to their followers with another gender than to their followers with
the same gender.
2.3 Democratic versus autocratic styles
The second difference is democratic versus autocratic styles, also known as participative versus
directive style. A leader who has a democratic style permits followers to have influence when
decisions are made. This is the opposite of an autocratic leader, who forbids followers to have
influence when decisions are made (Eagly & Johannessen-Schmidt, 2001).
Gender differences between democratic and autocratic styles are more evident than the gender
differences between interpersonal and task styles. The result of Eagly and Johnson‟s (1990) metaanalysis was that women have a more democratic or participative style and men have a more
autocratic or directive style. In contrast to interpersonal and task styles, organizational,
assessment, and laboratory studies have no influence in the gender differences concerning
democratic versus autocratic styles. There is another reason why men and women differ between
democratic and autocratic style, namely the attitudinal prejudice against women. Doubts about the
leadership capabilities of women may be intensified by women who give direction in a
particularly authoritative way. To ensure that followers allow a female leader, she has to involve
the followers in decision making. This results in gaining self-confidence and being successful. In
contrast, men suffer less from attitudinal prejudice, so they can have an autocratic or directive
leadership style (Eagly & Johnson, 1990).
2.4 Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles
The last difference is transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire styles. A Transformational
leader wants to gain trust of his subordinates and then he sets himself as a role model. This leader
appreciates behavior, wants to innovate, establishes future targets and sets up a plan to attain his
targets. In contrast to a transformational leader, a transactional leader sets up an exchange
connection with his followers. This leader underlines the responsibility of his followers,
supervises them, and sets up future goals. When his followers fail the future goals, he will punish
9
them and when they achieve the future goals, he will reward them. Besides these two styles of
leadership, a third style is differentiated, namely laissez-faire leadership style. This style denotes
that the leader neglects his accountability (Burns, 1978).
A Meta-analysis about these styles has been done by Eagly et al. (2003). This meta-analysis
disclosed some facts, where female leaders have a more transformational style than male leaders
is one of them. Female leaders ensure that their subordinates feel respect and are satisfied,
demonstrate their future goals in an optimistic way and they give attention to subordinates‟ needs
(Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). In addition, female leaders feel more importance to
rewarding good behavior, which is an element of a transactional style. Other components of a
transactional style, like accompanying the faults of his subordinates and waiting to intervene until
problems become serious, are more related to men than to women (Eagly et al., 2003). Also more
related to men than to women, is the laissez-faire style, which means that a leader is not present at
important moments (Eagly & Johannesen-Schmidt, 2001). In consideration of these results,
female leaders can achieve a small advantage towards men. Namely, women are more effective
because they have a more transformational style than men, reward good behavior and men are
more related to the laissez-faire style than women. These differences between men and women are
in favor of women. Thus, in this case, women can obtain a small benefit contrasted to men,
because female leaders exceed their male colleagues on particular leadership elements (Eagly &
Carli, 2003).
2.5 Conclusion
The differences between men and women are small, though they do exist. The difference between
interpersonal and task styles is that women attach more importance to interpersonal relationships
and to achieving tasks than men (Eagly & Johnson, 1990). The fact that women attach more
importance to achieving tasks is contrasted to the universal forecast, which includes that men
attach more importance to achieving tasks than women (Eagly et al., 1992). Gender differences
between democratic and autocratic styles are clearer. Eagly and Johnson (1990) showed that
women have a more democratic style and men have a more autocratic style. Another reason why
gender differences exist within this dimension, is the attitudinal prejudice against women. The last
dimension, transformational, transactional and laissez-faire styles, which has been discussed in
this thesis showed also a difference between the sexes. Even this dimension showed a small
advantage for women, because they are more effective with their transformational style, reward
good behavior, and women are less related to the laissez-faire style than men (Eagly & Carli,
2003).
10
CHAPTER 3 BEHAVIOR IN FEMALE- AND MALE-DOMINATED INDUSTRIES
3.1 Introduction
Petty and Miles (1976) found out that when a leader demonstrates structure behavior, for example
“Asking slower subordinates to get more done” (Matsui & Ohtsuka, 1978, p.129), both male and
female followers are more contented with a male leader. However, when a leader demonstrates
consideration behavior, for example "treating the person who makes a mistake with consideration
for his feelings" (Matsui & Ohtsuka, 1978, p.129), both male and female followers are more
contented with a female leader (Petty & Miles, 1976). In this case male and female followers
prefer the same, though in many cases they do not prefer the same and when a leader is aware of
this preference, he or she can change his or her behavior. Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999)
represent the first study, which links and connects gender leadership differences and male- and
female-dominated industries. This study shows that there is a relationship between the leader‟s
gender and a male- or female-dominated industry. First, this relationship will be clarified in a
female-dominated industry, afterwards in a male-dominated industry.
3.2 Female-dominated industries
Male leaders in female-dominated industries showed up less pressure in contrast to female
leaders, which is quite unexpectedly, because women in female-dominated industries can be
perceived as representatives (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). Kanter (1977) says that women in
female-dominated industries have enough influence and authority to be regarded as dominant,
both the number of women as the authority they have. In female dominated industries, men are
automatically in the minority, though they are probably just numerical in the minority and can
posses the same authority as women.
Women in female-dominated industries feel less discrimination than women in male-dominated
industries. Women feel discrimination when it is about career progress and when women are
considered as less favorably than men, which happens less frequently in female-dominated
industries. The fact that women feel discrimination arises in their perception, so when women
think they are not discriminated, they show up less job stress, which can be noticed in a femaledominated industry (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). On the other hand, women can gain
competitive advantage when they are discriminated. If women defeat discrimination and achieve a
higher position, they will be seen as survivors and this results in a competitive advantage (Eagly
et al., 2003).
11
When leaders are in a female-dominated industry, the theory of Eagly and Johnson (1990) about
the interpersonal style applies, which is clarified before. Thus, women in a female-dominated
industry have a more interpersonal style than men in a female-dominated industry (Gardiner &
Tiggemann, 1999).
In contrast to an interpersonal style, a task style is adapted by male leaders. The theory of Eagly
and Johnson (1990) says that women attach more importance to achieving tasks than men,
however when male and female leaders are in a female-dominated industry, their task style was
similar, so male leaders adapt their style to a more female style when they are in a femaledominated industry (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
3.3 Male-dominated industries
When leaders are in male-dominated industries, the extent to which a woman or a man in the same
job confronts pressure differs. For example, pressure from discrimination is showed up more by
women than by men in male-dominated industries. Besides pressure from discrimination, women
contrasted to men showed up also pressure from the firm (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
Despite these differences, women contrasted to men did not show up inferior mental health in
male-dominated industries, which is opposite to the expectation (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
For example, Davidson and Cooper (1983) argued that women‟s mental health is attacked because
they are in a male-dominated industry. However, there is no difference between men and women,
there is a difference between the industries. When leaders are in male-dominated industries they
showed up inferior mental health, than leaders in female-dominated industries. This result
indicates that women and men similarly deal with the pressure when they are in male-dominated
industries (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
The extent to which a leader has an interpersonal style, which is clarified before, is equal to both
women and men in a male-dominated industry, so women adapt their interpersonal style to a more
male style (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). This suits the theory of Eagly and Johnson (1990),
which says that when men overshadow women within a firm, these women are inclined to reduce
their interpersonal style. Dipboye, Smith and Howell (1994) have another reason why the
leadership style of women in a male-dominated industry looks more male, because these female
leaders are chosen to give direction in a male-dominated industry. Namely, a female leader with
male characteristics fits better with a male-dominated industry, than a female leader without male
characteristics.
12
In contrast to interpersonal style, task style suits the theory of Eagly and Johnson (1990), which
says that women attach more importance to achieving tasks. Thus, both male and female leaders
do not have to adapt their task style in a male-dominated industry (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
Another result of the Gardiner and Tiggemann‟s (1999) research was a relationship between
interpersonal style and mental health. Women in male-dominated industries showed up an inferior
mental health when they have a more interpersonal style, so there is a negative relationship. On
the contrary, men in male-dominated industries showed up an inferior mental health when they
have a les interpersonal style, so there is a positive relationship. An explanation of this
contradiction could be that, when the leadership style of women in male-dominated industries is
seen as feminine, this results in inferior mental health. Another reason is explained on the basis of
male leaders. When men have a more interpersonal style, loyalty can increase and difficulties can
decrease. However, male leaders may not be aware of these advantages and thus have no gain,
which will result in inferior mental health (Luthans & Larsen, 1986).
3.4 Conclusion
First, the differences in female-dominated industries were discussed. One of the results is that
when male leaders are in a female-dominated industry, they showed up less pressure than female
leaders. Besides this, women in female-dominated industries feel less discrimination contrasted to
women in male-dominated industries (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). However, discrimination
can also be seen as a competitive advantage, because if women beat discrimination, they will be
seen as survivors (Eagly et al., 2003). Another result is that women, in contrast to men, in a
female-dominated industry have a more interpersonal style. Contrasted to an interpersonal style,
task style is adapted by male leaders, which results in a comparable task style of both male and
female leaders (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999). Afterwards, the differences in male-dominated
industries were discussed. The first difference is that pressure from discrimination is showed up
more by women than by men in male-dominated industries. Despite these differences, women in
contrast to men did not show up inferior mental health. The extent to which a leader has an
interpersonal style is also equal in a male-dominated industry, which means that women adapt
their interpersonal style to a more male style. In contrast to interpersonal style, women have a
more task style than men, which means that they do not adapt their leadership style in a maledominated industry. Besides this, there is also a relationship between interpersonal style and
mental health. Women in a male-dominated industry showed up an inferior mental health when
they have a more interpersonal style and men in a male-dominated industry showed up an inferior
mental health when they have a les interpersonal style (Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
13
CHAPTER 4 CHANGE OF LEADERSHIP STYLE
4.1 Introduction
It is apparent that leaders occasionally change their behavior when they are in male- or femaledominated industries. What has not been explained yet is how leaders can change their behavior.
This explanation will be given in this chapter utilizing Smith‟s (2000) R-E-A-L Model of personal
transformation, which consists of four stages; recognizing, exploring, actualizing and leading.
Recognizing means enlarging self-consciousness and discovering characteristics which are not
revealed yet. Exploring stands for finding out more abstrusely our personality and finding out the
way thoughts are limited by assumptions. Actualizing represents releasing usual ways of thinking
and becoming more skilled persons. The last stage, leading, implies utilizing the new
consciousness and transforming behavior. These short descriptions will be further clarified in the
following part. Afterwards, experiences of reviewers of Smith‟s (2000) model of personal
transformation will be given.
4.2 R-E-A-L Model of personal transformation
The biggest part of the population is not aware of his qualities, which means that people cannot
use these qualities until they recognize these. Recognizing yourself results in a more realistic view
about yourself and your environment, which subsequently results in being more self-aware. When
more self-awareness has been attained by a leader, it is easier to respond to certain situations. The
first thought about these certain situations is not in hand and can hardly be changed. Besides this,
also the first physical reaction to certain situations is not in hand. Physical reactions are derived
from emotions, which are frequently misinterpreted by other people. People have a tendency to
interpret emotions as negative and this leads to holding back emotions. However, when a leader
remarks and appreciates emotions, these emotions can be good partners instead of enemies. For
example, it is important to trust emotions, because emotions can indicate bad situations. Besides
emotions, also qualities are important, which describe the way a person behaves. These are
contrasted to skills, which can be learned and are more aware than qualities. Smith (2000)
believes that every leader has a total spectrum of qualities, but not every leader has developed the
same qualities. It is important to develop certain qualities which are needed to make live, what is
envisioned (Smith, 2000).
After self-awareness has been raised, exploring will elaborate on the development of identifying
yourself. A person‟s development is influenced by parents and social environment, especially
during childhood, because this is the most sensitive time. Characteristics which are not liked, are
14
tended to be hidden by persons, though these characteristics will exist in the subconsciousness. In
subconciousness, also constituents are developed, which are characteristics of the personality and
semi enduring. These constituents can direct conduct, choices and responses to situations. Besides
constituents, also mindsets are developed, which are ideas, visions and standards about the world.
These mindsets guard people from fear by deleting things which are not wanted to be noticed. The
disadvantage of constituents and mindsets is that people recognize themselves with these and
subsequently, these constituents and mindsets can take control over people, what happens in the
subconsciousness. Constituents and mindsets have more influence when they are more
unconscious, because they are harder to detect. To lose this influence, it is important to realize the
presence of a constituent and a mindset. Afterwards, the extent to which this constituent and
mindset are identified by a leader has to be examined (Smith, 2000). If a leader detaches his
constituents and mindsets he is able to dominate these, instead of these dominating a leader
(Assagioli, 1990). In addition to constituents and mindsets, also values have to be determined.
Values indicate whether a person finds something right or wrong or what he desires. Values affect
the decision making process and conduct by performing as reference points, and therefore values
are a relevant element of a person‟s leadership style. When values are determined by a leader, he
will get to know more about himself and he will make improved decisions, because he is less
influenced by short-term deliberations (Smith, 2000).
When a person has examined his constituents, mindsets and values, he is able to actualize, which
means that he is able to perform consciously. However, first he has to develop and change himself
if he desires to actualize his examined constituents, mindsets and values, because changes lead to
revealing of the unconscious parts. Nevertheless, there is a reluctance to change and this
reluctance has to be defeated. Also, a leader has to adapt his attitude and conduct, which needs the
leader‟s will. Will is a very important characteristic if a leader wants to change. Besides will, it is
also important that a leader accept the way he is, including his imperfections, because if a leader
accepts himself, he can care for others with respect. The will is strongly associated with the center
of identity. If a leader undergoes his center of identity, he is capable to see his complete image.
Subsequently, when a leader has identified his identity he is able to free himself from constituents
and mindsets, if he has a strong will. A strong willpower is also connected to leaders who have a
high leadership position, because these leaders are willing to work many hours and in their view
the company‟s wants are more important than their own wants (Smith, 2000).
After taking these three steps, a leader is capable for the last step, namely leading. Previous steps
will be integrated and a leader is now conscious of his qualities and values. Besides this, a leader
15
is not captured by his constituents and mindsets anymore (Smith, 2000). Taking the last step is
only possible when a leader permits room for a transformation (England, 2002). In practice a
leader can better react to particular situations and sees the true wants of a company, because of his
increased awareness. The characteristics of a leader have not been changed, though he revealed
some characteristics which were unaware. A leader who endured these steps is able to influence
an existing company, perform with honesty, enhance relationships, enlarge independence and
stimulate allegiance and faith. Besides this, a leader is also capable to determine and practice his
values, handle contrasts and disagreements, motivating subordinates and enlarge his selfconfidence. Thus, enduring these four steps, will give a leader a considerable number of benefits
(Smith, 2000).
4.3 Experiences of reviewers
Bailey (2001) has read Smith‟s (2000) book about inner leadership. She supposes that the book is
useful for leaders who consider their job as frustrating, are dissatisfied with their performances or
are worried because of present requirements. Bailey (2001) does not agree with the heroic leader
which will be attained at the end if a leader reads the whole book. Although, she agrees with the
thought that at the end of the book a leader will find his own hidden capacities to provide a better
reaction on particular situations. In the book, there are described many cases that are sometimes
embarrassing, though often believable. These cases and other exercises have to lead to a change of
life, though Bailey (2001) did not obtain this experience, while she had an enhanced idea about
self-perception after reading the book.
Another reviewer is Blackman (2001), who agrees with Smith (2000) that a leader needs more
self-awareness. The way to attain more self-awareness is explained in the book and therefore the
book obtains a contribution. Blackman (2001) identified with the cases that have been written in
the book, which resulted in self-reflection. This self-reflection is precisely what Smith wants to
attain with his book. However, the actual complexities which can arise if a leader tries to apply his
new discoveries are insufficiently underlined. Besides this, she believes that not every target will
succeed, regardless of a leader‟s endeavor. Nevertheless, an excellent point of the book is that a
leader improved his mindset after reading the book.
4.4 Conclusion
The first step of Smith‟s (2000) R-E-A-L model of personal transformation is recognizing, which
results in being more self-aware. When a leader has more self-awareness he can easier respond to
certain situations. After raising self-awareness, the next step can be taken, namely exploring,
16
which will elaborate identifying yourself. In a leader‟s subconsciousness constituents and
mindsets are developed. The disadvantage of these is that a leader recognizes himself with them
and these can take control over a leader. To lose this influence, it is important to realize the
presence of a constituent and a mindset. Besides constituents and mindsets, also values have to be
determined. After determining values, a leader will make better decisions. When a leader has
passed this stage, he is able to actualize, which means that he is able to perform consciously.
Nevertheless, first he has to change and he has to identify his identity before he is free of his
constituents and mindsets. After doing this, a leader is ready for taking the last step, namely
leading. Previous steps will be integrated and a leader is now conscious of his qualities and
values. Besides this, a leader is not captured by his constituents and mindsets anymore. In practice
a leader can better react to certain situations and he sees the true wants of a company, because of
his increased awareness (Smith, 2000).
Bailey (2001) and Blackman (2001) have read this book. Overall they are positive about the book
and they find the book interesting. However, Bailey (2001) did not obtain a change of life after
reading the book and Blackman (2001) believes that actual complexities which can arise if a
leader tries to apply his new discoveries are insufficiently underlined.
17
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Before the problem statement could be answered, the research questions need to be answered:
-
How do male and female managers differ in leadership styles?
-
How do male and female leaders behave in male- and female-dominated industries?
-
How can leadership styles change?
The order of the research questions and the following paragraphs correspond each other.
Gender leadership differences have been provided in three main differences. The first is that
women attach more importance to interpersonal relationships and to achieving tasks than men. In
addition, women have a more democratic style and men have a more autocratic leadership style
(Eagly & Johnson, 1990). Finally, women have an advantage contrasted to men, because women
have a more transformational style and they are less related to laissez-faire leadership style than
men (Eagly & Carli, 2003).
Afterwards, the extent to which male and female leaders change their leadership style when they
are in male- or female-dominated industries has been examined. This change is only examined for
an interpersonal and a task style. Both female and male leaders in female-dominated industries do
not change their interpersonal style. However, male leaders in female-dominated industries do
change their task style to a more female style, which results in a similar task style of both male
and female leaders. When leaders are in male-dominated industries, their interpersonal style is
equal, which means that women adapt their interpersonal style to a more male style. Nevertheless,
both female and male leaders in male-dominated industries do not change their task style
(Gardiner & Tiggemann, 1999).
Finally, the way a leader can change his leadership style has been described utilizing Smith‟s
(2000) R-E-A-L model of personal transformation. First, it is necessary that a leader recognizes
himself by attaining more self-awareness to improve his responses to certain situations, which can
be being in male- or female-dominated industry. Afterwards, a leader has to explore his
constituents and mindsets, which can direct a leader‟s conduct, choices and responses. If a leader
wants to lose this influence, he has to realize the presence of a constituent and a mindset. After
doing this, a leader has to identify his identity and then he is able to actualize, which means that
he is able to perform consciously. When a leader has endured these steps, he is able to lead, which
18
can result in a change of leadership style when he is in a male- or female-dominated industry
(Smith, 2000).
With the aid of the previous part of this conclusion an answer can be given to the problem
statement of this thesis: To what extent do male and female leaders change their leadership style
when they are in male- or female-dominated industries?
When leaders are in a female-dominated industry, male leaders adapt their task style to a more
female style and when leaders are in a male-dominated industry, female leaders adapt their
interpersonal style to a more male style.
5.2 Discussion/limitations
Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) combined Eagly‟s (1990; 1992; 2000; 2001; 2003; 2003)
theories, which she has written with other researchers. These theories have been written in the
United States, while Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) did their research in Australia. It is possible
that this country difference can also result in a culture difference, which means that the results of
Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) are not valid. To test whether this research is valid or invalid, this
research has to be replicated in the United States. Moreover, Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) are
the only researchers who have explored the relationship between leadership style and a male- or
female-dominated industry. Thus, more research would enhance the credibility. Besides this,
Gardiner and Tiggemann (1999) had only taken into account the interpersonal and task style of
Eagly‟s (1990; 1992; 2000; 2001; 2003; 2003) theories, though democratic versus autocratic and
transformation, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles are important too.
Little research has been done about the way a leader can change his leadership. Therefore, this
thesis is dependent on Smith‟s (2000) R-E-A-L model of personal transformation. Unfortunately,
this theory does not totally match the theories of Eagly (1990; 1992; 2000; 2001; 2003; 2003) and
Gardiner and Tiggemann‟s (1999) theory.
5.3 Academic and practical recommendations
Little research has been done about the relationship between gender leadership differences and
working in a male- or female-dominated industry. More research would improve the credibility of
the existing theory, therefore a sampling technique will be given. A simplified sampling technique
would follow the next description: first some female and male leaders, who are working in a
„normal‟ industry, are needed for this research and they should be closely monitored.
19
Subsequently, the leaders should change from a „normal‟ industry to a female- or male-dominated
industry and should be closely monitored again. It is important to make four different
combinations; a male leader in a male-dominated industry, a male leader in a female-dominated
industry, a female leader in a male-dominated industry and a female leader in a female-dominated
industry. Afterwards, the results of monitoring can be compared and analyzed.
Until now, a small number of changes are known when leaders are in male- or female-dominated
industries. Now and then male leaders adapt their leadership style to a more female style and
sometimes female leaders adapt their leadership style to a more male style. Moreover, when they
change their leadership style, they do not change radically. Thus, when a company needs a new
leader it does not really matter whether they choose a male or a female leader. However, women
have a small advantage contrasted to men because they have a more transformational style and
they are less related to laissez-faire style than men (Eagly & Carli, 2003).
20
REFERENCES
Assagioli, R. (1990). The Act of Will: a Guide to Self-actualization and Self-realization. Crucible.
Bailey, D. (2001). Inner Leadership: Realize Your Self-Leading Potential. Training Journal, Feb
2001, 29.
Bales, R.F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blackman, D.A. (2001). Inner Leadership: Realize Your Self-Leading Potential. Long Range
Planning, 34 (2), 269-270.
Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Davidson, M.J. & Cooper, C.L. (1983). Stress and the woman manager. Oxford: Martin
Robinson.
Dipboye, R.L., Smith, C.S. & Howell, W.C. (1994). Understanding industrial and organizational
psychology: An integrated approach. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Eagly, A.H. & Carli, L.L. (2003). The female leadership advantage: an evaluation of the evidence.
The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 807-834.
Eagly, A.H. & Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. (2001). The leadership styles of women and men.
Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 781-797.
Eagly, A.H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C. & Engen, M.L. van (2003). Transformational,
transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles : a meta-analysis comparing women and men.
Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 569-591.
Eagly, A.H. & Johnson, B.T. (1990). Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 233–256.
Eagly, A.H., Makhijani, M.G. & Klonsky, B.G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: a
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111 (1), 3-22.
21
Eagly, A.H., Wood, W. & Diekman, A.B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and
similarities: a current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H.M. Trautner (Eds.). The development social
psychology of gender, 123-174. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
England, D. (2002). Inner leadership – personal transformation. Industrial and commercial
training, 34 (1), 21-27.
Gardiner, M. & Tiggemann, M. (1999). Gender differences in leadership style, job stress and
mental health in male- and female-dominated industries. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 72, 301-315.
Halpin, A.W (1957). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Columbus, OH:
Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University.
Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses
to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965-990.
Luthans, F. & Larsen, J.K. (1986). How managers really communicate. Human Relations, 39,
161-178.
Matsui, T. & Ohtsuka, Y. (1978). Within-Person Expectancy Theory Predictions of Supervisory
Consideration and Structure Behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 63 (1), 128-131
Morrison, A.M., White, R.P., Velsor, E. van & The Center for Creative Leadership (1987).
Breaking the Glass Ceiling. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Oakley, J.G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: understanding the
scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of business ethics, 27, 321-334.
Petty, M.M. & Miles, R.H. (1976). Leader sex-role stereotyping in a female-dominated work
culture. Personnel Psychology, 29, 393-404.
Smith, S. (2000). Inner Leadership: Realize Your Self-Leading Potential. London, England:
Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
22